無(wú)托槽矯治技術(shù)應(yīng)用于口腔正畸治療的價(jià)值分析

孟芳

[摘要] 目的 探討口腔正畸治療中應(yīng)用無(wú)托槽矯治技術(shù)的效果。方法 方便選取2017年7月—2018年6月期間的66例口腔正畸患者作為研究對(duì)象。根據(jù)患者所使用的治療方案的不同進(jìn)行分組。采取傳統(tǒng)固定矯治技術(shù)的33例患者為對(duì)照組，采取無(wú)托槽矯治技術(shù)的33例患者為觀察組。觀察并比較兩組的正畸治療情況、咀嚼功能情況及滿意度。結(jié)果 觀察組的傾斜牙扶正時(shí)間（15.12±3.44）周、轉(zhuǎn)位牙扶正時(shí)間（15.34±3.52）周、正畸治療完成時(shí)間（37.52±2.46）周明顯早于對(duì)照組的傾斜牙扶正時(shí)間（28.45±3.06）周、轉(zhuǎn)位牙扶正時(shí)間（27.43±3.22）周、正畸治療完成時(shí)間（59.64±5.23）周，差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（t=8.452、8.574、11.254，P=0.012、0.011、0.004）;觀察組的咬合力（155.34±12.54）磅、咀嚼效率（87.68±6.14）%明顯高于對(duì)照組的咬合力（103.45±11.37）磅、咀嚼效率（70.28±6.42）%，差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（t=8.642、5.674，P=0.010、0.034）;觀察組對(duì)美觀舒適性的滿意度評(píng)分（8.24±1.35）分、對(duì)便捷性的滿意度評(píng)分（9.04±0.72）分、對(duì)語(yǔ)言功能的滿意度評(píng)分（9.21±0.75）分明顯高于對(duì)照組對(duì)美觀舒適性的滿意度評(píng)分（6.43±2.24）分、對(duì)便捷性的滿意度評(píng)分（6.51±2.36）分、對(duì)語(yǔ)言功能的滿意度評(píng)分（7.25±2.02）分，差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（t=5.443、5.125、6.357，P=0.036、0.042、0.025）。結(jié)論 無(wú)托槽矯治技術(shù)在口腔正畸治療中有著理想的應(yīng)用效果。

[關(guān)鍵詞] 無(wú)托槽矯治技術(shù);口腔;正畸治療

[Abstract] Objective To explore the effect of bracketless correction technology in orthodontic treatment. Methods Sixty-six orthodontic patients from July 2017 to June 2018 were convenient selected as the research subjects. They were grouped according to the treatment regimen used by the patient. Thirty-three patients treated with traditional fixed orthodontics were used as the control group， and 33 patients treated with non-bracketed orthodontics were used as the observation group. To observe and compare the orthodontic treatment， chewing function and satisfaction of the two groups. Results The oblique teeth righting time （15.12±3.44） weeks， the orthodontic time （15.34±3.52） weeks， and the orthodontic treatment completion time （37.52±2.46） weeks were significantly earlier in the observation group than in the control group （28.45±3.06） weeks， orthodontic correction time （27.43±3.22） weeks， orthodontic treatment completion time （59.64±5.23）weeks， the difference was statistically significant （t=8.452， 8.574， 11.254， P=0.012， 0.011 0.004）; the bite force （155.34±12.54）pounds and chewing efficiency （87.68±6.14）% of the observation group were significantly higher than the bite force （103.45±11.37）pounds and chewing efficiency （70.28±6.42）% of the control group. The differences were statistically significant（t=8.642， 5.674， P=0.010， 0.034）; the observation group's satisfaction rating for aesthetic comfort （8.24±1.35）points， satisfaction rating for convenience （9.04±0.72） points， language function （9.21±0.75） points were significantly higher than the control group s satisfaction score （6.43±2.24） for aesthetic comfort， convenience score （6.51±2.36）， and language function satisfaction （7.25±2.02） points， the difference was statistically significant（t=5.443， 5.125， 6.357， P=0.036， 0.042， 0.025）. Conclusion Bracket-free orthodontics has ideal application effect in orthodontic treatment.