舌側矯正大不同

The Dissimilarity of Lingual

陳宜方(I-Fang Chen) ； 况守信(Shou-Hsin Kuang)

《中華民國齒顎矯正學雜誌》 18卷2期 (2006/06) Pp. 41-47

https://doi.org/10.30036/TJO.200606.0007

摘要

舌側矯正裝置於70年代因應患者對於美觀的高度要求而漸進發展，各型矯正器三度空間控制均為內建以達成直線式矯正的理想，但外形大小、弓線置入方向及基底貼合程度各有不同。由於牙齒舌側形態變異及視野受限，矯正器黏著方式以間接法TARG、CLASS及HIRO系統等為主流。總治療時間與唇側矯正無異，然臨床工作時間約為兩倍。，患者在口腔清潔、咀嚼、說話及舒適度上均受影響，尤以發音不清最為嚴重。生物力學上與唇側矯正最大差異為：(l)施力弦度較大；(2)黏著位置和抗力中心之相對位置不同使扭矩及旋轉控制不易。基於以上所述，慎選病例、精確黏著矯正器、熟知生物力學上的差異並小心避免副作用的產生為治療成功的關鍵要素。

關鍵字

舌側矯正 ； 間接黏著 ； 語言障礙 ； 扭矩

並列摘要

Lingual appliance has gradually developed n the 70th to fulfill the patients' high demand of beauty. All types of lingual brackets are preprogrammed, but the size, the shape, the wire insertion direction and the degree of base fitting are different. Due to various lingual morphology, limited operation field and access approach, indirect bonding system such as TARO, CLASS and HIRO are the mainstream method rather than the direct bonding one. Lingual appliance costs about twice of the chairtime every appointment but approximately the same total treatment duration to finish a case. The oral hygiene, chewing function, speech and patient comfort are affected, especcially in pronunciation. As to biomechanics, the greatest difference between labial and lingual orthodontic treatment lies in (1) greater force intensity; (2) different bonding position relative to center of resistance causes difficult torque and rotational control. Case selection, precise bonding, being familiar with comparative biomechanics and avoiding side effect are the keys to success lingual treatment.

並列關鍵字

lingual orthodontics ； indirect bonding ； speech disturbance ； torque