背景:在II类2级患者中,通过清晰的对准器实现的门牙运动的可预测性知之甚少。这项回顾性研究的目的是确定清晰的对齐器在倾斜和侵入上切牙中的有效性及其影响因素。
方法:纳入符合资格的II类2类错牙合畸形患者。对于清晰的对准治疗,设计了三种类型的门牙运动:前倾,侵入和阴唇运动。叠加治疗前和治疗后的牙科模型。分析了门牙的预测和实际(DPA)牙齿移动之间的差异。采用单因素和多元线性回归分析潜在影响因素。
结果:共纳入51例患者及其173个上切牙。实际门牙前倾和侵入小于预测(均P<0.001),而实际阴唇运动大于预测(P<0.001)。门牙前倾和侵入的可预测性分别为69.8%和53.3%,分别。多元线性回归分析显示,DPA与预测的预测预测呈正相关(B=0.174,P<0.001)。同侧前磨牙拔除(B=2.773,P<0.001)和同侧犬前倾(B=1.811,P<0.05),而与磨牙远远呈负相关(B=-2.085,P<0.05)。侵入的DPA与预测的侵入呈显着正相关(B=0.556,P<0.001),而与阴唇微型植入物呈负相关(B=-1.466,P<0.001)。阴唇运动的DPA与预测的阴唇运动呈显著正相关(B=0.481,P<0.001),而与磨牙远远呈负相关(B=-1.004,P<0.001),阴唇微型种植体(B=-0.738,P<0.001)和年龄(B=-0.486,P<0.05)。
结论:对于II级2级患者,预测的门牙前倾(69.8%)和侵入(53.3%)部分通过明确的对齐治疗实现。门牙的唇移动过度(0.7mm)可能会实现。切牙运动受预测运动量的影响,前磨牙提取,犬的前倾,磨牙远距,微型植入物和年龄。
BACKGROUND: The predictability of incisor movement achieved by clear aligners among Class II division 2 patients is poorly understood. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the effectiveness of clear aligners in proclining and intruding upper incisors and its influencing factors.
METHODS: Eligible patients with Class II division 2 malocclusion were included. For clear aligner therapy, three types of incisor movements were designed: proclination, intrusion and labial movement. Pre-treatment and post-treatment dental models were superimposed. The differences between predicted and actual (DPA) tooth movement of incisors were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate linear regression were used to analyze the potential influencing factors.
RESULTS: A total of 51 patients and their 173 upper incisors were included. Actual incisor proclination and intrusion were less than predicted ones (both P < 0.001), while actual labial movement was greater than predicted one (P < 0.001). Predictability of incisor proclination and intrusion was 69.8% and 53.3%, respectively. Multivariate linear regression revealed that DPA of proclination was significantly positively associated with predicted proclination (B = 0.174, P < 0.001), ipsilateral premolar extraction (B = 2.773, P < 0.001) and ipsilateral canine proclination (B = 1.811, P < 0.05), while negatively associated with molar distalization (B = - 2.085, P < 0.05). The DPA of intrusion was significantly positively correlated with predicted intrusion (B = 0.556, P < 0.001) while negatively associated with labial mini-implants (B = - 1.466, P < 0.001). The DPA of labial movement was significantly positively associated with predicted labial movement (B = 0.481, P < 0.001), while negatively correlated with molar distalization (B = - 1.004, P < 0.001), labial mini-implants (B = - 0.738, P < 0.001) and age (B = - 0.486, P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: For Class II division 2 patients, predicted incisor proclination (69.8%) and intrusion (53.3%) are partially achieved with clear aligner therapy. Excessive labial movement (0.7 mm) of incisors may be achieved. Incisor movement is influenced by predicted movement amount, premolar extraction, canine proclination, molar distalization, mini-implants and age.