口腔生物医学 ›› 2024, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (5): 281-286.

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

山西地区选择不同矫治器的成人正畸患者人口学特点及临床指征对比分析

张颖,杨彤彤,刘亚丽   

  1. 山西医科大学口腔医学院口腔医院
  • 收稿日期:2023-04-17 修回日期:2023-11-23 出版日期:2024-10-25 发布日期:2024-11-04
  • 通讯作者: 杨彤彤 E-mail:yangtongtong@163.com

Comparative analysis of demography characteristics and clinical indications of adult orthodontic patients with different appliances

  • Received:2023-04-17 Revised:2023-11-23 Online:2024-10-25 Published:2024-11-04

摘要: 目的:本研究旨在通过对选择不同矫治器的成人正畸患者一般人口学特点及临床指征进行对比分析,将患者多方面的特征融入矫治器的选择,为正畸医生帮助患者选择合适的矫治器提供参考。方法:选取180名成人正畸患者为研究对象,根据矫治器类型对研究对象进行分组:隐形矫治器组(122名)及固定矫治器组(58名),分析对比两组患者的一般人口学特点及临床指征。结果:隐形矫治器组患者年龄大于固定矫治器组(28±6.8岁>21.9±1.6岁,P=0.037),家庭收入高于固定矫治器组(P=0.001),且常居地为异地患者比固定矫治器组患者多(69.7%>19%,P=0.011),两组间具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者错牙合畸形牙性分类及矢状骨关系分类比例相似,两组间均无统计学意义。侧貌面型评估中,固定矫治器组患者呈现出的下唇比隐形矫治器组患者更突出(下唇-E线距离:3.3±2.2 mm>0.9±2.0mm,P= 0.016),其他变量均无统计学意义。两组患者龋失补指数(DMFT)平均为2.6,固定矫治器组高于隐形矫治器组(3.5±1.4>2.1±0.9,P=0.005),在DMFT评估包含的变量中,只有龋坏牙数在固定矫治器组高于隐形矫治器组(P< 0.001),其他变量均无统计学意义。两组患者的牙龈指数(GI)为1.4±0.4,菌斑指数(PI)为0.69±0.52,两组间均无统计学意义。结论:1.与选择固定矫治器的患者相比,年龄较大、常居住地为外地及家庭收入较高的的患者多选择隐形矫治器。2.与选择隐形矫治器的患者相比,选择固定矫治器的患者下唇更突出,侧貌欠佳,且口内龋坏牙齿更多。

关键词: 隐形矫治器, 固定矫治器, 成人正畸患者, 一般人口学特点, 临床指证

Abstract: Objective:The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the general demography characteristics and clinical indications of adult orthodontic patients who choose different orthodontic devices, integrate the characteristics of patients in many aspects into the selection of orthodontic devices, and provide reference for orthodontists to help patients choose appropriate orthodontic devices.method:180 adult orthodontic patients were selected as the research objects, and the research objects were divided into two groups according to the types of appliances: invisible appliances group (122) and fixed appliances group (58). The general demography characteristics and clinical indications of the two groups of patients were analyzed and compared.Results:The patients in the invisible appliance group were older than those in the fixed appliance group (28 ± 6.8 years>21.9 ± 1.6 years, P=0.037), had a higher family income than those in the fixed appliance group (P=0.001), and had more patients living in different places than those in the fixed appliance group (69.7%>19%, P=0.011). There was statistical significance between the two groups (P<0.05). The proportion of classification of malocclusion and sagittal skeletal relationship between the two groups of patients is similar, and there is no statistical significance between the two groups. In the profile assessment, patients in the fixed appliance group exhibited a more prominent lower lip than those in the invisible appliance group (lower lip E line distance: 3.3 ± 2.2 mm>0.9 ± 2.0 mm, P=0.016), and other variables were not statistically significant. The average DMFT of the two groups of patients was 2.6, and the fixed appliance group was higher than the invisible appliance group (3.5 ± 1.4>2.1 ± 0.9, P=0.005). Among the variables included in the DMFT evaluation, only the number of decayed teeth was higher in the fixed appliance group than in the invisible appliance group (P<0.001), and other variables were not statistically significant. The gingival index (GI) of the two groups of patients was 1.4 ± 0.4, and the plaque index (PI) was 0.69 ± 0.52, with no statistical significance between the two groups.Conclusion:1.Compared with patients who choose fixed appliances, patients who are older, have a permanent residence in another city, and have a higher family income tend to choose invisible appliances.2.Compared with patients who choose invisible appliances, patients who choose fixed appliances have a more prominent lower lip, poor profile, and more decayed teeth in the mouth.

Key words: Invisible appliances, Fixed appliances, Adult orthodontic patients, General demography characteristics, Clinical indication