采用四螺旋或快速上颌扩张术治疗后交叉咬合的畸形效果:一项为期 1 年的随机对照试验

Stina Hansson, E. Josefsson, Henrik Lund, Silvia Miranda-Bazargani, Anders Magnuson, R. Lindsten, F. Bazargani
{"title":"采用四螺旋或快速上颌扩张术治疗后交叉咬合的畸形效果:一项为期 1 年的随机对照试验","authors":"Stina Hansson, E. Josefsson, Henrik Lund, Silvia Miranda-Bazargani, Anders Magnuson, R. Lindsten, F. Bazargani","doi":"10.2319/010424-9.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n To assess skeletal and dental effects and evaluate possible side effects of maxillary expansion with two different appliances, directly after expansion and 1 year postexpansion.\n \n \n \n Forty-two patients with unilateral posterior crossbite (mean 9.5 ± 0.9 years) were randomized to either rapid maxillary expansion (RME) banded on the deciduous second molars and bonded to the primary canines or slow expansion with quad helix (QH) on the permanent first molars. Cone-beam computed tomography records were taken at baseline, directly after correction of the posterior crossbite and at follow-up 1 year after expansion.\n \n \n \n All patients were analyzed. RME opened the midpalatal suture more anteriorly and inferiorly (mean 4.1 mm) and less posteriorly and superiorly (mean 1.0 mm). No effect on midpalatal suture could be shown in the QH group after expansion, P < .001. Buccal bone width had significantly decreased (P < .001) in the QH group compared with the RME group. Buccal fenestrations and root resorption on the left first molar had a higher prevalence directly after expansion finished in the QH group (P = .0086, P = .013) but were not significant at 1-year follow-up (P = .11, P = .22).\n \n \n \n Opening of the suture with RME was more anterior and inferior, and the QH did not open the midpalatal suture at all. More buccal bone loss and fenestrations were seen on the permanent first molar in patients treated with conventional QH than RME anchored to deciduous teeth.\n","PeriodicalId":503286,"journal":{"name":"The Angle Orthodontist","volume":" 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Skeletal effects of posterior crossbite treatment with either quad helix or rapid maxillary expansion: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up\",\"authors\":\"Stina Hansson, E. Josefsson, Henrik Lund, Silvia Miranda-Bazargani, Anders Magnuson, R. Lindsten, F. Bazargani\",\"doi\":\"10.2319/010424-9.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n \\n To assess skeletal and dental effects and evaluate possible side effects of maxillary expansion with two different appliances, directly after expansion and 1 year postexpansion.\\n \\n \\n \\n Forty-two patients with unilateral posterior crossbite (mean 9.5 ± 0.9 years) were randomized to either rapid maxillary expansion (RME) banded on the deciduous second molars and bonded to the primary canines or slow expansion with quad helix (QH) on the permanent first molars. Cone-beam computed tomography records were taken at baseline, directly after correction of the posterior crossbite and at follow-up 1 year after expansion.\\n \\n \\n \\n All patients were analyzed. RME opened the midpalatal suture more anteriorly and inferiorly (mean 4.1 mm) and less posteriorly and superiorly (mean 1.0 mm). No effect on midpalatal suture could be shown in the QH group after expansion, P < .001. Buccal bone width had significantly decreased (P < .001) in the QH group compared with the RME group. Buccal fenestrations and root resorption on the left first molar had a higher prevalence directly after expansion finished in the QH group (P = .0086, P = .013) but were not significant at 1-year follow-up (P = .11, P = .22).\\n \\n \\n \\n Opening of the suture with RME was more anterior and inferior, and the QH did not open the midpalatal suture at all. More buccal bone loss and fenestrations were seen on the permanent first molar in patients treated with conventional QH than RME anchored to deciduous teeth.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":503286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Angle Orthodontist\",\"volume\":\" 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Angle Orthodontist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2319/010424-9.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle Orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/010424-9.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估上颌扩弓术对骨骼和牙齿的影响,并评估两种不同矫治器在扩弓后直接使用和扩弓一年后可能产生的副作用。 42 名单侧后交叉咬合患者(平均 9.5 ± 0.9 岁)被随机分配到快速上颌扩弓器(RME)和慢速上颌扩弓器(QH)中,前者在落叶第二磨牙上绑带,并与主犬齿粘合,后者在永久第一磨牙上绑带。锥形束计算机断层扫描记录了基线、矫正后交叉咬合后的直接记录以及扩弓后 1 年的随访记录。 对所有患者进行了分析。RME 使腭中缝向前方和下方张开的幅度更大(平均为 4.1 毫米),向后方和上方张开的幅度较小(平均为 1.0 毫米)。QH 组扩容后对腭中缝没有影响,P < .001。与 RME 组相比,QH 组的颊骨宽度明显减少(P < .001)。左侧第一磨牙的颊骨裂缝和牙根吸收在 QH 组完成扩弓后直接出现的几率更高(P = .0086, P = .013),但在 1 年的随访中并不明显(P = .11, P = .22)。 RME组的缝线开口更靠前和更靠下,而QH组完全没有打开腭中缝。与固定在乳牙上的 RME 相比,使用传统 QH 治疗的患者第一恒磨牙上出现了更多的颊骨缺损和隙缝。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Skeletal effects of posterior crossbite treatment with either quad helix or rapid maxillary expansion: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up
To assess skeletal and dental effects and evaluate possible side effects of maxillary expansion with two different appliances, directly after expansion and 1 year postexpansion. Forty-two patients with unilateral posterior crossbite (mean 9.5 ± 0.9 years) were randomized to either rapid maxillary expansion (RME) banded on the deciduous second molars and bonded to the primary canines or slow expansion with quad helix (QH) on the permanent first molars. Cone-beam computed tomography records were taken at baseline, directly after correction of the posterior crossbite and at follow-up 1 year after expansion. All patients were analyzed. RME opened the midpalatal suture more anteriorly and inferiorly (mean 4.1 mm) and less posteriorly and superiorly (mean 1.0 mm). No effect on midpalatal suture could be shown in the QH group after expansion, P < .001. Buccal bone width had significantly decreased (P < .001) in the QH group compared with the RME group. Buccal fenestrations and root resorption on the left first molar had a higher prevalence directly after expansion finished in the QH group (P = .0086, P = .013) but were not significant at 1-year follow-up (P = .11, P = .22). Opening of the suture with RME was more anterior and inferior, and the QH did not open the midpalatal suture at all. More buccal bone loss and fenestrations were seen on the permanent first molar in patients treated with conventional QH than RME anchored to deciduous teeth.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信