| Objectives:The reliability of the Customized orthodontic model was evaluated by ABO-OGS Standard,and the model was used to evaluate the clinical effect of post-orthodontic model.Material&Methods:(1)The establishment of customized model and its reliability evaluation:40 cases of completed orthodontic treatment with Damon Q bracket(Standard torque)were selected,of which 20 cases of extraction(4 first anterior molars were removed)and 20 cases of non-extraction cases.?40 cases of pre-orthodontics gypsum model were scanned into digital model and preserved in STL format.?In accordance with ABO-OGS Standard and Andrews six keys standard,and the customized model was obtained according to the digital model before orthodontics.?According to the ABO-OGS scoring standard,the ABO-OGS comprehensive score of the customized orthodontic model(target model)is measured respectively,and the reliability of the target model are evaluated by ABO-OGS standard.(2)The pass rate of the model after treatment with ABO-OGS standard:?40 cases of gypsum model after treatment into a digital model and preservation in STL format,?according to ABO-OGS scoring criteria,measure the ABO-OGS comprehensive score of the post-orthodontics model(the post-model)and test its pass rate.(3)Using the customized orthodontic model to evaluate the clinical effect of the model after orthodontic treatment:according to the requirements of the method(1)&(2),20 cases of extraction cases were obtained by the post-orthodontic model and the customized model,and the obtained post-orthodontic model was set to group A after treatment,and the customized model was set to target group A.(4)Using the customized orthodontic model to evaluate the clinical effect of non-extraction cases after treatment:according to the requirements of the method(1)&(2),20 cases of non-tooth extraction were obtained by the post-orthodontic model and the customized model,and the obtained post-orthodontic model was set to group B after treatment,and the target model was set to target group B.(5)The following comparison was made between post-orthodontic group A and target group A,post-orthodontic group B and target group B respectively:1)The similarity of arch width,length and circumference of the group A&group B on the ICC index;2)independent-sample T test,and the difference between torque,axial and rotation of group A&group B(other than the second molar)was analyzed;3)using Wilcoxon rank and test,the differences of the group A&group B on the ABO-OGS indexes were analyzed.The clinical effect of group A and group B after treatment was also evaluated.Results:1.Establish a customized orthodontic model;According to ABO-OGS Standard to detect the customized orthodontic model:?cases of extraction(15.70±5.71);?cases of non-extraction(10.15±4.02),compared with ABO-OGS standard comprehensive score,the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05).2.According to ABO-OGS Standard to detect the post-orthodontic model:?cases of extraction(21.20±4.40),?cases of non-extraction(15.30±2.99);compared with ABO-OGS standard comprehensive score,the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05).3.Comparison of the width,length and circumference of the post group and the target group:the two groups of models had higher arch width,length and circumference similarity(extraction:Intraclass Correlation Coefficient(ICC)>0.90,non-extraction:>0.75).4.The difference of torque,axial and rotation between the orthodontic group and the target group was tested by independent-samples T test:?difference in torque(°):(1)group A:U1(post:4.63±2.58?target:7)?U2(post:1.94±0.69?target:3)?U3(post:-12.29±4.37?target:-7)?U5(post:14.65±4.71?target:-7)? U6(post:-14.44±7.69.target:-9)and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);(2)group B:U4(post:-12.25±5.33?target:-7)?U5(post:-16.07±5.29?target:-7)?U6(post:-14.71±7.86?target:-9)?L4(post:-20.11±5.65?target:-17)? L5(post:-26.32±5.96?target:-22)and the difference is statistically significant(P<0.05).?difference in axial(°):(1)group A:U1(post:3.54±1.43?target:5)?U2(post:5.71±2.59?target:9)?U3(post:5.30±2.68?target:11)?U5(post:5.29±3.52?target:2)?U6(post:3.34±0.81?target:5)?L5(post:9.76±2.82?target:2)?L6(post:3.50±0.90?target:2)and the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05);(2)group B:U1(post:3.16±1.79?target:5)?U2(post:4.98±2.73?target:9)?U3(post:5.20±2.62?target:ll)?U4(post:4.02±1.97?target:2)?U5(post:4.94±2.59?target:2)?U6(post:3.14±1.33?target:5)?L3(post:3.77±1.92?target:5)?L4(post:4.27±1.60?target:2)?L5(post:6.10±3.27?target:2)and the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05).?difference in rotation(°):(1)The rotation difference of group A was not statistically significant(P>0.05).(2)The rotation difference of group B:U2(post:63.39±5.39?target:60.11±3.84)?L3(post:45.83±6.81?target:41.89±3.88)?L4(post:27.5±5.12?target:25.01±3.10)and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05)5.Compare the differences between the ABO-OGS indexes of the post-orthodontics group and the ABO-OGS indexes of the target group,by Wilcoxon rank and test?Group A:Marginal Ridges(post:3.45±2.16,target:1.55±1.47),occlusion relationship(post:3.3 5±1.63,target:0.85±0.93)and comprehensive total score(post:21.20±4.40,target:15.70±5.71)differences were statistically significant(P<0.05),the remaining 5 scores were not statistically significant;?Group B:Buccolingual Inclination(post:2.45±2.16,target:0.70±1.69),occlusion contact(post:4.05±3.29,target:2.90±1.48),occlusion relationship(post:2.40±1.37,target:1.05±0.89),Overjet(post:2.25±1.65,target:1.35±0.93)and comprehensive total score(post:15.30±2.99,target:10.15±4.02)The differences were statistically significant(P<0.05);the difference in the remaining 3 scores was not statistically significantConclusions:1.The Customized orthodontic model achieves a good ABO-OGS evaluation standard and can be used as a reliable reference model to evaluate clinical efficacy2.The post-orthodontics model of this experiment,all reached the ABO-OGS standard3.The width,length and circumference of the arch of the model after the treatment of the case of extraction and non-extraction were similar to that of the customized orthodontic model4.?The lip torque of the maxillary anterior crown in the case of extraction is lower than that of the customized orthodontic model,that is,it is more tongue-leaning.?Compared with the customized orthodontic model,the degree of maxillary anterior tooth axis was poor and the degree of conformity of mandibular anterior teeth was higher than that of maxillary anterior teeth.?Compared with the customized orthodontic model,the rotation angle has a high degree of conformity and the degree of conformity of the anterior tooth area is higher than that of the posterior tooth area5.Compared with the customized orthodontic model,the score of occlusion relationship is poor.There was no significant difference in the scores of alignment and interproximal contacts.the comprehensive score of the customized orthodontic model is better than that of the post-orthodontics model. |
PDF Full Text Request