Shanghai kou qiang yi xue = Shanghai journal of stomatology · 2022
[Characteristics of condylography during masticatory movement in patients with Class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion and temporomandibular disorders].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Chun-Xiang, Wang Tian-Qi, Liu Dong-Qiao, Duan Xiao-Ni, Zhi Chen, Wang Jing, Lin Chen
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the characteristics of condylography of masticatory movement in patients of Class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion with temporomandibular disorders (TMD), and the effects of TMD and Angle Ⅱ1 malocclusion factors on the condylography of masticatory movement.
METHODS: According to the inclusion criteria of the experiment, ten normal occlusion subjects without TMD（nTMD-N）, ten Angle Ⅱ1 patients without TMD（nTMD-Ⅱ1）and 14 Angle Ⅱ1 patients with TMD（TMD-Ⅱ1）were included. Cadiax IV was used to record the condylography of the subjects during mastication, and the data of condylography was measured and analyzed by GDSW software. The results were analyzed with SPSS 26.0 software package.
RESULTS: The characteristics of condylography in nTMD-Ⅱ1 and TMD-Ⅱ1 groups were different from those of nTMD-N group. During unilateral mastication on the left or right side, there was no significant difference among nTMD-N group, nTMD-Ⅱ1 group and TMD-Ⅱ1 group. During bilateral mastication, the SCI value of nTMD-Ⅱ1 group was significantly higher than that of nTMD-N group, and the S value of nTMD-N group was significantly higher than that of nTMD-Ⅱ1 group (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: During unilateral masticatory movement, TMD and Angle Ⅱ1 malocclusion has little effect on the masticatory movement trajectory. Angle Ⅱ1 malocclusion has influence on bilateral masticatory movement, and the amplitude of condylar movement in patients with ClassⅡdivision 1 malocclusion is smaller than that in normal mastication. TMD has no significant effect on the masticatory movement condylography of the patients.
METHODS: According to the inclusion criteria of the experiment, ten normal occlusion subjects without TMD（nTMD-N）, ten Angle Ⅱ1 patients without TMD（nTMD-Ⅱ1）and 14 Angle Ⅱ1 patients with TMD（TMD-Ⅱ1）were included. Cadiax IV was used to record the condylography of the subjects during mastication, and the data of condylography was measured and analyzed by GDSW software. The results were analyzed with SPSS 26.0 software package.
RESULTS: The characteristics of condylography in nTMD-Ⅱ1 and TMD-Ⅱ1 groups were different from those of nTMD-N group. During unilateral mastication on the left or right side, there was no significant difference among nTMD-N group, nTMD-Ⅱ1 group and TMD-Ⅱ1 group. During bilateral mastication, the SCI value of nTMD-Ⅱ1 group was significantly higher than that of nTMD-N group, and the S value of nTMD-N group was significantly higher than that of nTMD-Ⅱ1 group (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: During unilateral masticatory movement, TMD and Angle Ⅱ1 malocclusion has little effect on the masticatory movement trajectory. Angle Ⅱ1 malocclusion has influence on bilateral masticatory movement, and the amplitude of condylar movement in patients with ClassⅡdivision 1 malocclusion is smaller than that in normal mastication. TMD has no significant effect on the masticatory movement condylography of the patients.