口腔医学
口腔醫學
구강의학
STOMATOLOGY
2009年
7期
356-358
,共3页
前磨牙拔除%安氏Ⅰ类%判别分析%头影测量分析
前磨牙拔除%安氏Ⅰ類%判彆分析%頭影測量分析
전마아발제%안씨Ⅰ류%판별분석%두영측량분석
premolar extraction%Class Ⅰ%cephalometric analysis%diacriminant analysis
目的 通过对拔除第一前磨牙和第二前磨牙的安氏Ⅰ类错(牙合)病例治疗前颌面部软硬组织的比较,探寻影响前磨牙拔除模式的因素,为临床提供参考.方法 选取疗效满意、中轻度拥挤、非双颌前突的安氏Ⅰ类病例153例,分为两组,其中拔除4个第一前磨牙组96例,拔除4个第二前磨牙组57例.对两组治疗前的头颅侧位X线片进行测量(软硬组织共118项指标),组间比较,选取其中有统计学差别的指标进行逐步判别分析.结果 逐步判别分析得到判别公式:IS=0.092A.P.D.I+0.065FMIA-0.049颏沟倾角-0.352下唇厚度+0.188颏部软组织厚度-6.465,判别临界值为0.17.拔除第一前磨牙组回代率为77.1%,拔除第二前磨牙组回代率为77.2%.结论 在进行前磨牙拔除模式的选择上,治疗前软组织的形态,特别是下唇的厚度必须有所考虑.
目的 通過對拔除第一前磨牙和第二前磨牙的安氏Ⅰ類錯(牙閤)病例治療前頜麵部軟硬組織的比較,探尋影響前磨牙拔除模式的因素,為臨床提供參攷.方法 選取療效滿意、中輕度擁擠、非雙頜前突的安氏Ⅰ類病例153例,分為兩組,其中拔除4箇第一前磨牙組96例,拔除4箇第二前磨牙組57例.對兩組治療前的頭顱側位X線片進行測量(軟硬組織共118項指標),組間比較,選取其中有統計學差彆的指標進行逐步判彆分析.結果 逐步判彆分析得到判彆公式:IS=0.092A.P.D.I+0.065FMIA-0.049頦溝傾角-0.352下脣厚度+0.188頦部軟組織厚度-6.465,判彆臨界值為0.17.拔除第一前磨牙組迴代率為77.1%,拔除第二前磨牙組迴代率為77.2%.結論 在進行前磨牙拔除模式的選擇上,治療前軟組織的形態,特彆是下脣的厚度必鬚有所攷慮.
목적 통과대발제제일전마아화제이전마아적안씨Ⅰ류착(아합)병례치료전합면부연경조직적비교,탐심영향전마아발제모식적인소,위림상제공삼고.방법 선취료효만의、중경도옹제、비쌍합전돌적안씨Ⅰ류병례153례,분위량조,기중발제4개제일전마아조96례,발제4개제이전마아조57례.대량조치료전적두로측위X선편진행측량(연경조직공118항지표),조간비교,선취기중유통계학차별적지표진행축보판별분석.결과 축보판별분석득도판별공식:IS=0.092A.P.D.I+0.065FMIA-0.049해구경각-0.352하진후도+0.188해부연조직후도-6.465,판별림계치위0.17.발제제일전마아조회대솔위77.1%,발제제이전마아조회대솔위77.2%.결론 재진행전마아발제모식적선택상,치료전연조직적형태,특별시하진적후도필수유소고필.
Objective To find the pretreatment factors influencing the premolar extraction pattern and provide some clinical and aca-demic reference for the premolar extraction choice before treatment. Methods In the study 96 patients involved the extraction of first premolars and 57 patients involved the extraction of second premolars. Both groups of patients were Class Ⅰ without protruding maxillary and the crowding was less than 8mm and the treatment effects were satisfactory. The lateral cephalometric radiographs taken before and after treatment were traced and measured. 118 typical values of hard tissue and soft tissue were measured in Winceph 7.0 software and statistical analysis was carried by Spss10. 0 software. After the statistically significant differences were searched, stepwise discriminant a-nalysis was applied to identify the key factors for discriminating the two groups. Results IS = 0. 092A. P. D. I + 0. 065FMIA - 0. 049 ∠Pos - B'- FH - 0. 352 [Lower lip thickness] + 0. 188 [soft tissue thickness of chin] - 6. 465. The critical score was 0. 17. The pa-tient with an individual score higher than the critical score will be treated with the second premolar extraction. When the values were taken back to the formula,the percent age was 77. 1 in the first premolar extraction group and 77.2 in the second premolar extraction group. Conclusions In the choice of premolar extraction pattern before treatment, we must think of the soft tissue profile, especially the thickness of lower lip.
