论文部分内容阅读
目的:研究安氏Ⅰ类和安氏Ⅱ类错畸形舌体、舌骨位置的差异,探讨舌及舌骨位置与错畸形矢状向牙和颌骨位置改变的关系。方法:选择未经治疗的安氏Ⅰ类错畸形患者15例(平均年龄13.7岁,男7例,女8例);安氏Ⅱ类错畸形患者15例(平均年龄14.3岁,男4例,女11例),拍摄头颅定位侧位片,进行头影测量分析。测量舌体位置(U’O、S’O、ET、HET和Ltg1-7),舌骨位置(C3H、H’H、GoGn-H)以及牙、颌骨的矢状向指标。采用SPSS15.0软件包对2组测量值进行成组t检验,并分析两组测量值之间的相关性。结果:安氏Ⅱ类错畸形舌体高度大于安氏Ⅰ类,差异有显著性(P<0.05)。舌体长度、姿势位及舌骨位置均无显著差异。安氏Ⅰ类错组,HET与CoA显著相关(r=0.691,P<0.01),S’O分别与CoA、U1L1显著相关(r=0.689,P<0.01;r=-0.673,P<0.01),C3H与ANB相关(r=-0.519,P<0.05)。安氏Ⅱ类错组,HET分别与CoA、CoGn显著相关(r=-0.528,P<0.05;r=-0.569,P<0.05),S’O分别与CoA、CoGn、GoGn及GoGnSN显著相关(r=-0.551,P<0.05;r=0.535,P<0.05;r=0.626,P<0.05;r=0.531,P<0.05),GoGnH分别与MP、OP显著相关(r=0.540,P<0.05;r=0.617,P<0.05)。结论:安氏Ⅰ类与安氏Ⅱ类错畸形患者的舌体高度存在显著差异,舌体高度及舌体垂直位置和上颌长度相关。舌体及舌骨的位置在安氏Ⅰ类错畸形和安氏Ⅱ类错畸形的矢状向颌骨及牙位置上存在不同的相关关系。
OBJECTIVE: To study the differences of lingual and lingual position between Class Ⅰ and Class Ⅱ malocclusion, and to explore the relationship between the location of tongue and hyoid bone and the position of sagittal dentition and mandible. Methods: Fifteen patients (mean age 13.7 years, 7 males and 8 females) with untreated Class Ⅰ malformations were selected. Fifteen patients with Class Ⅱ malocclusion (mean age 14.3 years, male 4 Cases, female 11 cases), shooting skull positioning lateral radiographs, cephalometric analysis. Tongue position (U’O, S’O, ET, HET and Ltg1-7), hyoid position (C3H, H’H, GoGn-H), and sagittal index of teeth and jaw were measured. The SPSS15.0 package was used to group t test two groups of measurements and analysis of the correlation between the two groups of measurements. Results: The tongue height of Class Ⅱ malocclusion was higher than that of Class Ⅰ, the difference was significant (P <0.05). There was no significant difference in tongue length, posture position and hyoid bone position. In Class Ⅰ malocclusion, HET was significantly associated with CoA (r = 0.691, P <0.01), and S’O was significantly associated with CoA and U1L1 (r = -0.689, P <0.01; ), C3H was associated with ANB (r = -0.519, P <0.05). In the Class Ⅱ malocclusion group, HET was significantly associated with CoA and CoGn (r = -0.528, P <0.05; r = -0.569, P <0.05), and S’O was significantly associated with CoA, CoGn, GoGn and GoGnSN (r = -0.551, P <0.05; r = 0.535, P <0.05; r = 0.626, P <0.05; r = 0.531, P <0.05). GoGnH was significantly correlated with MP and OP (r = 0.05; r = 0.617, P <0.05). Conclusion: The tongue height of Class Ⅰ and Class Ⅱ malocclusion patients are significantly different, and the height of the tongue and the vertical position of the tongue are related to the maxilla length. The tongue and the position of the hyoid bone are different in the sagittal and mandible positions of Class Ⅰ malocclusion and Class Ⅱ malocclusion.