改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治安氏Ⅱ~1错19例报告

目的 :探讨改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治安氏Ⅱ1错牙合的临床疗效。方法 :应用改良摆式矫治器及口外弓对 19例平均年龄 13 .4岁 ,第二磨牙已萌出的牙性安氏Ⅱ1错牙合进行治疗 ,进行矫治前后X线头影测量分析。结果 :改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓 ,能同时推第一、第二磨牙向远中移动 ,直至磨牙为Ⅰ类或偏近中关系 ,上颌磨牙平均每月向远中移动 1.3mm。并能同步打开咬合 ,导下颌向前。结论 :改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治牙性Ⅱ1错牙合是一种较好的方法。     

改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治安氏Ⅱ1错（牙合）19例报告

目的:探讨改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治安氏Ⅱ1错牙合的临床疗效.方法:应用改良摆式矫治器及口外弓对19例平均年龄13.4岁,第二磨牙已萌出的牙性安氏Ⅱ1错牙合进行治疗,进行矫治前后X线头影测量分析.结果:改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓,能同时推第一、第二磨牙向远中移动,直至磨牙为Ⅰ类或偏近中关系,上颌磨牙平均每月向远中移动1.3 mm.并能同步打开咬合,导下颌向前.结论:改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治牙性Ⅱ1错牙合是一种较好的方法.     

改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治安氏Ⅱ^1错He19例报告

目的：探讨改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治安氏Ⅱ^1错He的临床疗效。方法：应用改良摆式矫治器及口外弓对19例平均年龄13．4岁，第二磨牙已萌出的牙性安氏Ⅱ^1错He进行治疗，进行矫治前后X线头影测量分析。结果：改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓，能同时推第一、第二磨牙向远中移动，直至磨牙为Ⅰ类或偏近中关系，上颌磨牙平均每月向远中移动1．3mm。并能同步打开咬合，导下颌向前。结论：改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治牙性Ⅱ^1错He是一种较好的方法。     

改良蛙式矫治器远中移动上颌磨牙临床初探

目的：比较改良蛙式矫治器与摆式矫治器远中移动上颌磨牙的临床疗效。方法：将20例需远中移动上颌磨牙病例分成两组,改良蛙式矫治器组8例,摆式矫治器组12例。对矫治前及磨牙移动至中性关系后的头颅定位侧位片进行测量,并通过成组设计的t检验分析两组牙颌面形态变化的差异。结果：①改良蛙式矫治器组与摆式矫治器组在上颌第一磨牙远中移动距离、远中倾斜程度、矫治时间及速率上无明显统计学差异（P〉0．05）。②改良蛙式矫治器组上颌第二前磨牙远中移动1．83±1．21mm,远中倾斜7．50°±7．07°摆式矫治器组上颌第二前磨牙近中移动1．79±2．44mm,近中倾斜4．33°±3．73°两组问有明显统计学差异（P〈0．01）。③改良蛙式矫治器组上颌中切牙近中移动0．17±0．52mm,远中倾斜0．580±1．74°摆式矫治器组上颌中切牙近中移动2．96±2．46mm,近中倾斜7．08°±7.48°两组问有明显统计学差异（P〈0．05）。结论：改良蛙式矫治器能不依赖患者配合,有效地远中移动上颌磨牙,并且相比较摆式矫治器能有效地减少前牙支抗丧失,适用于安氏Ⅱ类错胎畸形的矫治。     

改良"摆"式矫治器推磨牙远移12例分析

目的:研究改良"摆"式矫治器对(牙合)和面部骨骼结构的影响.方法:安氏Ⅱ类错(牙合)12例,采用改良"摆"式矫治器治疗.摆式矫治器推磨牙向远中的疗程为2～4个月.进行X线头影测量分析和模型测量分析.结果:①每侧磨牙平均向远中移动2.75 mm,主要为倾斜移动.②切牙牙冠平均向近中移动2.06 mm,主要为近中倾斜移动,前牙覆盖增加1.30 mm.前牙唇倾增加1.9°.③摆式矫治器改良后对面部骨骼结构无直接影响.结论:摆式矫治器能有效地远中移动上颌磨牙,快速矫正磨牙关系,但也可导致磨牙远中倾斜及切牙唇向倾斜移动.     

摆式矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类错(牙合)的牙弓形态变化

目的 研究摆式矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类错(牙合)的牙弓形态变化.方法 应用摆式矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类错(牙合)患者32例,定量测量矫治前后上下颌石膏模型的尖牙间宽度、第一磨牙间宽度,测量结果行t检验.结果 上颌尖牙间宽度、上颌第一磨牙间宽度分别增加3.49 mm和3.04 mm.上颌第一磨牙的轴倾度减少3.77°.下牙弓的拥挤改善,前牙覆(牙合)减少3.37 mm、覆盖减少4.42 mm.磨牙关系由安氏Ⅱ类转为安氏Ⅰ类.结论 摆式矫治器可用于治疗轻、中度安氏Ⅱ类错(牙合),且避免拔牙.     

摆式矫治器与口外弓远中移动磨牙的疗效比较

目的:比较摆式矫治器与口外弓头帽牵引2种方法推磨牙远中移动的临床疗效。方法:选取牙源性安氏II类错牙合30例,按照配对实验设计的原理分为2组,分别使用摆式矫治器(P组)和口外弓头帽牵引(F组)进行不拔牙矫治。矫治前后拍摄头颅侧位片,采用Pancherz分析法进行X线头影测量分析,比较2组患者治疗前后牙颌结构的变化。采用SPSS11.0统计学软件进行配对t检验,α取0.05。结果:推磨牙远中移动的治疗时间:P组为(20.6±4.0)周,F组为(26.0±3.6)周,两者具有显著性差异P<0.01;矫治前后,P组磨牙远中移动为(-3.1±0.53)mm,F组为(-2.2±0.82)mm,两者具有显著性差异P<0.01。矫治前后,P组上颌切牙唇向移位(0.8±0.78)mm,F组上颌切牙腭向移位(-1.0±0.88)mm,两者具有显著性差异P<0.01。结论:摆式矫治器能更快速、有效地推动上颌磨牙远中移动,但需要加强对上颌前牙的支抗控制。     

MBT直丝弓矫治器与SUS^2下颌前伸矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩错[牙合]12例报告

目的：采用MBT直丝弓矫治器与SUS^2下颌前伸矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩错[牙合]畸形,观察其临床疗效。方法：对12例安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩错胎病例应用MBT直丝弓矫治器常规排齐整平上下牙列,再装配SUS^2下颌前伸矫治器进行矫治,对治疗前后面[牙合]像及头颅侧位定位片进行分析。结果：SNB增加2．2°,ANB减少2．5°,SNA无明显变化,前牙覆盖减小4．4ram,MP-FH增加1．2°,NP-FH增加1．6°。结论：用MBT直丝弓矫治器与SUS^2下颌前伸矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩错[牙合]畸形可以有效地利用下颌骨向前生长的潜力,刺激下颌骨的生长,抑制上颌骨的生长,同时可以使上颌磨牙远中移动,下颌磨牙近中移动,改善骨性及牙性矢状关系不调,从而达到矫治Ⅱ类错[牙合]的目的,取得明显的骨骼和侧貌改变。     

双侧推磨牙摆式矫治器的临床应用

目的：制作一种双侧推磨牙摆式矫治器,并应用于安氏Ⅱ类错牙合 并伴有牙源性前牙拥挤的患者的治疗。方法：选取15例（男6例,女9例）安氏Ⅱ类错牙合 并伴有牙源性前牙拥挤的患者配戴双侧推磨牙摆式矫治器半年,对矫治前后的头颅侧位片和模型进行测量分析,其测量项目主要包括磨牙远移的距离、磨牙压低的量、磨牙颊舌侧的偏移量、磨牙的近远中倾斜度、U1-SN值以及前牙覆盖量。测量的数据用t检验统计方法 ,并用SPSS17.0软件进行统计学处理。结果：临床观察双侧推磨牙摆式矫治器对安氏Ⅱ类错牙合 并伴有牙源性前牙拥挤的患者疗效显著。统计数据显示：磨牙远移的距离、磨牙压低的量、磨牙颊舌侧的偏移量以及磨牙的近远中倾斜度矫治前后比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;U1-SN值以及前牙覆盖量矫治前后比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;不同性别矫治前后比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。与临床观察基本一致。结论：该双侧推磨牙摆式矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类错牙合 并伴有牙源性前牙拥挤的患者,磨牙远移量改变明显,对面高的控制较好,保护了前牙支抗,防止了磨牙的旋转及颊舌侧倾斜,疗效显著且与性别无关。     

上唇挡联合改良摆式矫治器治疗牙列拥挤的疗效分析

目的：研究牙列拥挤患者经改良摆式矫治器与上唇挡联合治疗后的颅颌面结构的变化。方法：选取应用改良摆式矫治器与上唇挡联合应用治疗替牙晚期或恒牙初期重度牙列拥挤病例21例,测量矫治前后的头颅侧位定位片并进行配对t检验以评估疗效。结果：治疗后与治疗前比较：A点前移,SNA增加3.68°。上磨牙远中移动,U6-PTV减少2.96mm。结论：改良摆式矫治器与上唇挡联合应用可以有效矫治重度牙列拥挤,远移磨牙、促进上颌前部发育、改善患者侧貌外形。     

改良式摆型矫治器远中移动上颌磨牙的疗效分析

目的 评价改良式摆型矫治器远中移动上颌磨牙的疗效。方法 选择14例牙性安氏Ⅱ类错的患者,应用改良式摆型矫治器远移上颌第一磨牙,通过矫治前和磨牙远移到位后的X线头影测量分析评价其疗效。结果 磨牙平均向远中移动3.85mm,牙冠远中倾斜3.22°;切牙近中倾斜移动2.08mm,覆盖增加1.68mm。结论 改良式摆型矫治器能有效地整体远中移动上颌磨牙,快速矫正磨牙关系,但也会引起少量的支抗丧失和切牙唇向移动。     

A comparison of two intraoral molar distalization appliances: distal jet versus pendulum.

INTRODUCTION: This study compared the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects on Class II malocclusions of the distal jet with concurrent full fixed appliances and the pendulum appliance both followed by fixed appliances. METHODS: The 2 samples each consisted of 32 subjects (19 girls and 13 boys) with mean ages at the start of treatment of 12 years 3 months in the distal jet group and 12 years 6 months in the pendulum group. The durations of the distalization phase of treatment were 10 months in the distal jet group and 7 months in the pendulum group, and the durations of the second phase of treatment with fixed appliances were 18 months in the distal jet group and 24 months in the pendulum group. Lateral cephalograms were analyzed at 3 observation times: before treatment, after distalization, and after orthodontic treatment. RESULTS: During molar distalization, the pendulum subjects showed significantly more distal molar movement and significantly less anchorage loss at both the premolars and the maxillary incisors than the distal jet subjects. The distal jet used simultaneously with fixed appliances and the pendulum were equal in their ability to move the molars bodily. Very little change occurred in the inclination of the mandibular plane at the end of the 2-phase treatment (less than 1 degrees ) in both groups. At the end of comprehensive treatment, the maxillary first molars were 0.6 mm mesial to their original positions in the distal jet group and 0.5 mm distal in the pendulum group. Nevertheless, total molar correction was identical in the 2 groups (3.0 mm), and both appliances were equally effective in achieving a Class I molar relationship. Simultaneous edgewise orthodontic treatment during molar distalization in the distal jet group shortened the overall treatment time but produced significant flaring of both maxillary and mandibular incisors at the end of treatment. The impact on the soft tissue profile was minimal with both appliances.     

Soft tissue profile after distal molar movement with a pendulum K-loop appliance versus cervical headgear

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the soft tissue changes associated with the pendulum appliance that was supported with a K-loop buccally and to compare these treatment changes with a cervical headgear group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of 30 patients having skeletal Class I, dental Class II malocclusions were divided to two groups. Group 1 consisted of 7 girls, 8 boys (mean age, 15.0 +/- 3.4 years), and Group 2 consisted of 10 girls, 5 boys (mean age 14.2 +/- 2.9 years). The first group was treated with a pendulum appliance that was supported with a K-loop buccally, and the second group was treated with cervical headgear. Lateral cephalograms were taken at the beginning of treatment and at the end of distal molar movement. Treatment changes within the groups were analyzed using the paired t-test, and between group changes were analyzed with the independent t-test. RESULTS: The results showed that the pendulum/K-loop appliance had no significant effect on skeletal and dental variables and soft tissue A point, upper lip thickness, and sagittal upper lip position relative to the E plane. A significant difference for the change in Vp-Ls distance was found in patients in the pendulum/K-loop group (P < .05). Patients in the cervical headgear group showed significant retrusion in skeletal, dental, and soft tissue measurements (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The pendulum/K-loop appliance produces distal molar movement without causing any significant changes in the sagittal or vertical positions of either the jaw or the soft tissue profile.     

摆形矫治器矫治不同垂直骨面型安氏Ⅱ类错的疗效评价

目的　探讨摆形矫治器矫治不同垂直骨面型安氏Ⅱ类错的疗效及对牙颌面的影响。方法　对30例样 本(低角组、均角组、高角组各10例)治疗前后的24项X线头影测量指标进行测量和比较分析。结果　上颌磨牙在 不同的垂直骨面型中远中移动的距离不同,低角组移动最小,高角组移动最大;上颌磨牙在3组中均被压低,但差 别无统计学意义;各组样本第一双尖牙向近中移动量和前牙覆盖增加量不同,低角组最多,高角组最少。结论　摆 形矫治器可有效远中移动磨牙,在不同的垂直骨面型磨牙均被压低,为摆形矫治器用于矫治AngleⅡ类高角患者提 供了理论依据。     

La distalizzazione ottenuta con il pendulum di Hilgers: revisione della letteratura

Objectives

The purpose of our work is to review the literature about the pendulum appliance. We want to know how and when to use the pendulum, so as to balance the pros and cons about this orthodontic appliance, particularly in molar district.

Materials and methods

After reviewing the principal works about the pendulum, we selected and surveyed 32 out of them, then collected the relevant results, particularly concerning distal molar tipping and the bodily distalization as obtained after orthodontic treatment.

Results and Conclusions

The pendulum is a palatal appliance proven satisfactory in no-compliant II Class as obtained after distalization.The use of K-pendulum for Hilgers's pendulum reduces the risk of distal molar tipping, and that of the Bone-Anchored Pendulum Appliance (BAPA) involves no undesired effects such as premolar and anterior anchorage loss.It is better to use the pendulum appliance with all the permanent teeth in the mouth, second molar included and after the third molar germectomy.     

改良摆型矫治器远移上颌磨牙的疗效分析

［摘要］ 目的 分析改良摆型矫治器远移上颌磨牙的疗效。 方法 选择20例牙源性安氏Ⅱ类错牙合畸形的患者,采用改良摆型矫治器远移上颌磨牙,矫治前后进行X线头影测量和模型测量分析。 结果 4~6个月两侧磨牙平均远移5 mm,获得足够间隙。结论 改良摆型矫治器是一种经济,简便的远移上颌磨牙装置,效果可靠。     

钟摆矫治器远中移动磨牙的疗效分析

目的:评价钟摆矫治器远中移动磨牙的疗效。方法:测量10例应用该矫治器推磨牙向远中患者的术前术后模型,观察磨牙远中移动的距离及磨牙间宽度、覆覆盖的变化。结果:钟摆矫治器使磨牙每月平均远中移动117 mm,磨牙间宽度平均减小019 mm,覆平均减小115 mm,覆盖基本无变化。结论:钟摆矫治器是一种快速有效的推磨牙向远中的矫治器,对第二磨牙已萌的成人患者也有效。但它有打开咬合的作用,不适用于高角病例。     

Class II treatment by palatal miniscrew-system appliance: A case report

This case shows that using a rapid palatal expander (RPE) and then a pendulum appliance anchored to palatal miniscrews is an option for improving treatment management in a noncompliant patient requiring maxillary expansion and molar distalization in the late mixed dentition. First, an RPE was used to expand the maxillary arch. Then, a modified pendulum appliance was used to distalize the maxillary first permanent molars. Optimal positioning of two palatal miniscrews enabled both appliances to be supported by skeletal anchorage. Treatment was finished using multibracket fixed appliances, and after 2 years, skeletal Class I as well as dental Class I canine and molar relationships were achieved.     

The use of pendulum appliance in the treatment of Class II malocclusion

A case of correction of molar Class II using the pendulum appliance is described. Upper first molars were distalized into Class I, crowding was eliminated in the upper arch and space was provided to attain Class I relationship. Treatment lasted for 18 months. A two year follow up shows stability of the occlusion.