【摘要】：目的:比較種植體支抗與傳統(tǒng)方法(J鉤、多用途弓)壓低上頜前牙的臨床療效。 方法:計算機檢索英文數(shù)據(jù)庫（EMbase、Pub Med、 CochraneLibrary等）中文數(shù)據(jù)庫（萬方、維普、CNKI等）及其他在線數(shù)據(jù)庫，收集比較種植體與傳統(tǒng)方法壓低上前牙的隨機對照試驗（randomizedcontrol test,RCT）及病例對照試驗（prospective casecontrolled study，CCS）,并追查納入文獻的參考文獻。經(jīng)文獻篩選、資料提取和質(zhì)量評價后，采用Cochrane協(xié)作網(wǎng)推薦的RevMan5．1軟件進行Meta分析。 結(jié)果:共有11個研究納入，其中J鉤部分為6個研究，154例患者；多用途弓部分為5個研究，127例患者。Meta分析結(jié)果顯示：①與J鉤相比，種植體組U1-PP距變化量較多[95%CI（0.87，1.83）P＜0.00001]、覆牙合變化量較多[95%CI（0.33，1.38）P=0.001]、治療時間較短[95%CI（-4.85，-2.85）P＜0.00001]、SN-OP角增大量較少[95%CI （-2.49，，-0.47）P=0.004]、U6-PP距變化量較少[95%CI（-0.25，-0.01）P=0.03]；兩組在覆蓋變化量、牙根吸收量差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義（P＞0.05）。②與多用途弓相比，種植體組U1cr-PP距變化量較多[95%CI（0.12，0.93）P=0.01]、U6-PP角增大量較少[95%CI（-11.43，-5.33）P＜0.00001]；兩組在U1-PP距、U1-PP角、U6-PP距、 U6水平向移動距離、覆牙合、覆蓋、療程、牙根吸收量差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義（P＞0.05）。 結(jié)論:種植體壓低上前牙療效優(yōu)于傳統(tǒng)方法（J鉤、多用途弓）。與J鉤對比：種植體所需時間少，對牙合平面的影響較小，且患者較舒適，兩者牙根吸收量相當(dāng)。與多用途弓對比：微螺釘種植體對第一磨牙影響較小，兩者壓低所需時間及牙根吸收量相當(dāng)。
[Abstract]:Objective: to compare the clinical effect of implant Anchorage and traditional method (J hook, multi-purpose arch) on maxillary anterior teeth. Methods: English database (EMbase,Pub Med, CochraneLibrary et al.) Chinese database (Wanfang, Wiper, CNKI, etc.) and other online databases were searched by computer. (randomizedcontrol test, was collected and compared between implants and traditional methods to lower the anterior teeth. RCT) and case-control trial (prospective casecontrolled study,CCS), and tracing the references included in the literature. After literature screening, data extraction and quality evaluation, Meta analysis was carried out with RevMan5.1 software recommended by Cochrane Cooperative Network. Results: a total of 11 studies were included, including 6 cases with J hook and 154 patients. The results of Meta analysis showed that: 1 compared with J hook, the distance of U1-PP in implant group changed more [95%CI (0.87 鹵1.83) P < 0.00001]. The changes of overbite were more frequent [95%CI (0.33 鹵1.38) P0. 001], the treatment time was shorter [95%CI (-4.85% -2.85) P < 0.00001], and the increase of SN-OP angle was less [95%CI (-2.49), P < 0.05]. -0.47) P0. 004], U6-PP distance was less [95%CI (-0.25- 0.01) Pn0. 03]; There was no significant difference in the change of coverage and root absorption between the two groups (P > 0. 05). 2 compared with the multi purpose arch, the distance of U1cr-PP in the implant group was much higher [95%CI (0. 12 ~ 0. 93) P < 0. 01]. The increase of U6-PP angle was less [95%CI (-11.43 鹵5.33) P < 0.00001]; There was no significant difference in U1-PP distance, U1-PP angle, U6-PP distance, U6 horizontal moving distance, overbite, coverage, course of treatment and root resorption between the two groups (P > 0. 05). Conclusion: implant depression is superior to traditional method (J hook, multi-purpose arch). Compared with J hook, the implant needed less time, had less influence on the occlusal plane, and the patient was more comfortable. Compared with multipurpose arch, microscrew implants had little effect on the first molar, and the time required to suppress the first molar and the amount of root absorption were the same.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：重慶醫(yī)科大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：R783.5

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 李福軍;;微型種植體支抗和多用途弓壓低上前牙的療效對比[J];口腔醫(yī)學(xué)研究;2009年04期

2 王旭;張棟梁;王銳;;三段弓技術(shù)與微種植支抗技術(shù)壓低和內(nèi)收上切牙效果的對比研究[J];口腔醫(yī)學(xué)研究;2011年04期

3 張曉潔;梁芮;辜岷;付紅;孫墅;;種植體支抗和J鉤治療露齦微笑的臨床療效對比[J];實用口腔醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2008年04期

4 陳禮芳;陳勇;;微種植體支抗與J形鉤矯治高角安氏Ⅱ類深覆合的療效對比研究[J];實用醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2012年02期

5 王晴竹;陳文靜;Roger J Smales;彭輝;胡小坤;尹璐;;Apical Root Resorption in Maxillary Incisors When Employing Micro-implant and J-hook Headgear Anchorage: A 4-month Radiographic Study[J];Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology(Medical Sciences);2012年05期

6 喻小輝;陳金春;尋春雷;彭詩蕓;;微種植體支抗和J鉤矯治成人安氏Ⅱ類1分錯鉭上齒槽前部垂直向過度發(fā)育效果對比分析[J];中國現(xiàn)代醫(yī)生;2012年07期

本文編號：2412009