目的:评估,在成年人口中,正畸治疗对上颌切牙倾斜度的影响,面部,和生长轴在不同的下颌发散模式。此外,我们的目的是确定上颌切牙的倾斜度与面部和生长轴之间是否存在关联,以及这种关联在正畸治疗后是否会改变。
方法:选择并数字化的成年患者的两百三十八次连续侧颅图(T1时119次,T2时119次),T1时平均年龄为26.45±9.11岁,T2时平均年龄为29.58±9.36岁。测量头影上颌切牙(I)向颅底(SN)的倾斜度,腭平面(PP),nasion-A点(NA),nasion-basion(NBa),和真正的水平(H)。相对于NBa和H测量了面部(FA)和生长(GA)轴的倾斜度。根据头颅测量下颌骨与前SN的发散度(MP/SN),将样本分为三个亚组。A-超发散=MP/SN≤27°(n=28);B-超发散=27结果:T1时,A组I有更多的前倾趋势(I/SN=105.59±10.8°),C组(I/SN=99.06±12.04°)有更多的后倾趋势,无统计学意义。然而,T2时,A组和C组上颌切牙差异有统计学意义(p=0.002).治疗前FA和GA在三个分歧组之间差异有统计学意义(p<0.0001),A组(FA/Nba=92.77±5.07°)与C组(FA/Nba=86.28±5.08°)的角度增加更多。在治疗后评估时,该角度平均增加约2°(A组-p=0.033;B组-p=0.002)。在T1时,I与面部/生长轴之间的相关性无统计学意义,而在T2时,I/PP与FA/NBa之间的相关性更高,且具有统计学意义(r=0.408;p≤0.0001)。
结论:上颌切牙倾斜与面部/生长轴之间的相关性最初没有统计学意义,而在正畸治疗后,这些相关性较高且具有统计学意义.在所有分歧组中,口腔前组和口腔后组之间的FA存在差异。
结论:正畸医生应评估上颌切牙的倾斜度,不仅对上颌骨和前SN,而且对FA,并将其纳入其治疗目标。
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, in an adult population, the effect of orthodontic treatment on the inclination of maxillary incisors, facial, and growth axes in different mandibular divergence pattern. In addition, we aimed to determine if there is an association between the inclination of the maxillary incisors and facial and growth axes and if this association will change after orthodontic treatment.
METHODS: Two-hundred and thirty-eight consecutive lateral cephalograms (119 at T1 and 119 at T2) of adult patients with an average age of 26.45 ± 9.11 years at T1 and 29.58 ± 9.36 at T2 were selected and digitized. Cephalometric maxillary incisors (I) inclination was measured to cranial base (SN), palatal plane (PP), nasion-A point (NA), nasion-basion (NBa), and true horizontal (H). Facial (FA) and growth (GA) axes\' inclinations were measured relative to NBa and H. The sample was stratified in three subgroups based on cephalometric mandibular divergence to anterior SN (MP/SN). A-Hypodivergent = MP/SN ≤27° (n = 28); B-Normodivergent = 27 < MP/SN < 37° (n = 49); C-Hyperdivergent = MP/SN ≥37° (n = 42). Associations were tested using Chi-square tests for categorical data. Paired sample t-tests and Pearson\'s correlation were computed for continuous data.
RESULTS: At T1, there was a tendency to have more proclined I in group A (I/SN = 105.59 ± 10.8°) and more retroclined in group C (I/SN = 99.06 ± 12.04°) with no statistical significance. However, at T2, maxillary incisors were statistically significant different between groups A and C (p = 0.002). Pre-treatment FA and GA were statistically significantly different among the three divergence groups (p <0.0001) with more increased angles in the group A (FA/Nba = 92.77 ± 5.07°) vs group C (FA/Nba = 86.28 ± 5.08°). This angle increases around 2° on average at posttreatment assessment (group A-p = 0.033; group B-p = 0.002). Correlations between I and facial/growth axes were not statistically significant at T1, whereas at T2 those correlations were higher and statistically significant between I/PP to FA/NBa (r = 0.408; p ≤0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Correlations between the maxillary incisors\' inclination and the facial/growth axes were not statistically significant initially whereas after orthodontic treatment, those correlations were higher and statistically significant. Differences in FA existed between pre- and postorthodontic groups in all divergence groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontists should assess the inclination of the maxillary incisors, not only to the maxilla and anterior SN but also to FA and take it into consideration in their treatment objectives.