Effect of Comprehensive Rehabilitation Combined with Soft and Hard Occlusion Therapy for Disc Anchor Surgery of Anterior Disc Displacement with Reduction
-
摘要:
目的 观察软硬颌垫结合综合康复治疗颞下颌关节盘不可复性前移位复位固定术后咬合的临床疗效。 方法 对云南大学附属医院2017年1月至2021年4月收治的单侧颞下颌关节不可复性盘前移位行关节盘复位固定术的患者60 例,通过辅助颌垫维持术后髁突位置。实验对象完全随机分为2组,实验组为软颌垫治疗组(n = 30例),对照组为硬颌垫治疗组(n = 30例)。术后行为期3个月左右的综合康复治疗及张口训练,在术后1、3、6个月进行随访,并在术后即刻、3、6个月进行MRI检查。研究采用Fricton颞下颌关节紊乱指数、核磁共振评价标准评价关节盘复位效果、张口度改善程度、疼痛程度VAS值及患者佩戴颌垫的舒适度,研究2种颌垫的疗效。 结果 所有患者术后均出现不同程度的患侧后牙开颌,中线偏向健侧情况,戴用颌垫3~6个月后,开颌情况改善。术后2组Friction指数较术前均有明显下降,统计学分析显示,术后1个月,软颌垫组CMI(0.149±0.054)较硬颌垫组(0.221±0.051)下降明显。术后即刻MRI评价结果,软硬颌垫治疗有效率达100%(30/30);术后3个月及术后6个月MRI评价结果相同,软硬颌垫治疗有效率达97%(29/30)。2组患者术后1个月软颌垫组张口度(2.73±0.27)cm优于硬颌垫组的(2.07±0.39)cm,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。2组患者术后1个月软颌垫组疼痛指数(2.18±0.54)明显低于硬颌垫组的(3.03±0.29),差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。2组患者术后1个月佩戴舒适度调查显示,软颌垫组患者舒适率86.7%明显高于硬颌垫组的73.3%(P < 0.05)。 结论 软颌垫和硬颌垫治疗效果相似,但术后1个月软颌垫治疗效果明显优于硬颌垫,患者软颌垫佩戴舒适度也明显优于硬颌垫。结合软硬颌垫优缺点,即刻至术后1个月可先采用软颌垫,待术后1~3个月患者张口度明显改善后配合硬颌垫治疗,或视具体错颌畸形采用固定矫治器进行治疗。 Abstract:Objective To observe the effect of comprehensive rehabilitation combined with soft and hard occlusion therapy for disc anchor surgery of anterior disc displacement with reduction. Methods A total of 60 patients with anterior disc displacement with reduction who underwent unilateral disc anchor surgery from January 2017 to April 2021 were treated in The Affiliated Hospital of Yunnan University. The position of the postoperative condyle was maintained by assisted occlusion therapy. The subjects were randomly divided into two groups: the experimental group was the soft occlusion therapy group (n = 30 cases), and the control group was the hard occlusion therapy group (n = 30 cases). Comprehensive physical therapy and open-mouth training were performed 3 months after the operation, followed up 1, 3 and 6 months after the operation, and MRI was performed immediately, 3 and 6 months after the operation. Fricton index and MRI evaluation criteria were used to evaluate the reduction effect of joint disc, improvement degree of mouth opening, the comfort of patients wearing occlusion and visual analog scales. To study the efficacy of two occlusion therapy. Results Postoperative malocclusion occurred in all patients. The use of occlusion therapy for 3-6 months may decrease the proportion of malocclusion. The postoperative Friction index in both groups was significantly decreased compared with that before surgery. 1 month after surgery, CMI of the soft occlusion therapy group (0.149±0.054) was significantly lower than that of the hard occlusion therapy group (0.221±0.052). Immediate postoperative MRI evaluation showed that the effective rate of soft and hard occlusion was 100% (30/30). MRI evaluation results at 3 and 6 months after surgery were the same, and the effective rate of soft and hard occlusion treatment was 97% (29/30). One month after surgery, the mouth opening degree in the soft occlusion therapy group was (2.73±0.27) mm better than that in the hard occlusion therapy group (2.07±0.39) mm, with statistical significance (P < 0.05). One month after surgery, the VAS of the soft occlusion therapy group (2.18±0.54) was significantly lower than that of the hard occlusion therapy group (3.03±0.29), with statistical significance (P < 0.05). The wear comfort survey of patients in the two groups one month after surgery showed that the comfort rate of 86.7% in the soft occlusion therapy group was significantly higher than that in the hard occlusion therapy group (73.3%), and the difference was statistically significant. Conclusions Soft occlusion and hard occlusion have similar effects, but the treatment effect of soft occlusion is significantly better than hard occlusion 1 month after surgery, and the patient’s comfort level is also significantly better than hard occlusion. Combined with the advantages and disadvantages of soft occlusion and hard occlusion, soft occlusion can be used immediately to 1 month after the operation, and hard occlusion can be used for treatment after 1-3 months after the patient's mouth opening significantly improves, or fixed orthodontics can be used for treatment according to specific malocclusion. -
表 1 患者基本信息及病情的 Wilkes 分期统计 [(
$ \bar x \pm s $ )/n(%)]Table 1. Statistics of basic information and Wilkes’ staging of patients’ condition [(
$ \bar x \pm s $ )/n(%)]项目 性别 Wilkes分期 平均年龄(岁) 男 女 Wilkes Ⅱ Wilkes Ⅲ Wilkes Ⅳ Wilkes Ⅴ 软颌垫组(n = 30) 4(13.33) 26(86.67) 3(10.00) 13(43.33) 13(43.33) 1(3.33) 28.30±7.69 硬颌垫组(n = 30) 3(10.00) 27(90.00) 5(16.67) 13(43.33) 11(36.67) 1(3.33) 28.10±7.33 χ2 28.87 15.86 22.57 19.88 32.64 17.45 26.47 P 0.5244 0.9839 0.8286 0.9196 0.3384 0.9668 0.6494 表 2 Fricton颞下颌关节紊乱指数评分表(分)
Table 2. Fricton TMJ disorder index score table(score)
项目 计分方法 分值范围 肌肉压诊分(MP) 压痛点数 0~28 肌肉压痛指数(PI) PI = MP/28 0~1 下颌运动分(MM) 阳性项目数 0~16 关节杂音分(JN) 阳性项目数 0~4 关节压诊分(JP) 压痛点数 0~6 TMJ功能障碍指数(DI) DI = (MM + JN + JP)/26 0~1 颞下颌关节紊乱指数(CMI) CMI = (DI + PI)/2 0~1 表 3 2组患者术前、术后不同阶段Friction指数比较[(
$ \bar x \pm s $ ),分]Table 3. Comparison of Friction index between the two groups at different stages before and after treatment[(
$ \bar x \pm s $ ),scores]分组 时间 术前 术后1个月 术后3个月 术后6个月 软颌垫组(n = 30) PI 0.091 ± 0.034 0.035 ± 0.019 0.033 ± 0.022 0.025 ± 0.024 DI 0.552 ± 0.114 0.262 ± 0.095 0.175 ± 0.061 0.071 ± 0.036 CMI 0.321 ± 0.057 0.149 ± 0.054 0.104 ± 0.035 0.048 ± 0.029 硬颌垫组(n = 30) PI 0.097 ± 0.045 0.059 ± 0.026 0.028 ± 0.022 0.015 ± 0.020 DI 0.531 ± 0.139 0.383 ± 0.092 0.154 ± 0.049 0.073 ± 0.037 CMI 0.314 ± 0.065 0.221 ± 0.051 0.091 ± 0.025 0.044 ± 0.027 t 0.0712 2.1450 0.1252 0.0925 P 0.9437 0.0402* 0.9012 0.9269 *P < 0.05。 表 4 2组患者术前、术后不同阶段MRI评价比较[n(%)]
Table 4. Comparison of MRI evaluation between the two groups at different stages before and after treatment [n(%)]
分组 时间 优 良 差 有效率(%) 软颌垫组(n = 30) 术后即刻 30(100) 0(0) 0(0) 100 术后3个月 26(87) 3(10) 1(3) 97 术后6个月 26(87) 3(10) 1(3) 97 硬颌垫组(n = 30) 术后即刻 30(100) 0(0) 0(0) 100 术后3个月 27(90) 2(7) 1(3) 97 术后6个月 27(90) 2(7) 1(3) 97 表 5 2组患者术前、术后不同阶段张口度比较[(
$ \bar x \pm s $ ),cm]Table 5. Comparison of mouth opening between the two groups at different stages before and after treatment [(
$ \bar x \pm s $ ),cm]分组 术前 术后1个月 术后3个月 术后6个月 软颌垫组(n = 30) 3.07 ± 0.61 2.73 ± 0.27 3.23 ± 0.35 3.55 ± 0.15 硬颌垫组(n = 30) 3.04 ± 0.50 2.07 ± 0.39 3.17 ± 0.38 3.71 ± 0.10 t 0.7249 2.5489 0.5650 2.0578 P 0.4752 0.0164* 0.5869 0.0482* *P < 0.05。 表 6 2组患者术前、术后不同阶段疼痛指数比较(
$ \bar x \pm s $ )Table 6. Comparison of pain indexes between the two groups at different stages before and after treatment (
$ \bar x \pm s $ )分组 术前 术后1个月 术后3个月 术后6个月 软颌垫组(n = 30) 6.13 ± 0.60 2.18 ± 0.54 1.13 ± 0.69 0.67 ± 0.62 硬颌垫组(n = 30) 5.93 ± 0.62 3.03 ± 0.29 1.27 ± 0.59 0.38 ± 0.54 t 1.9230 2.2930 0.5495 2.5057 P 0.6823 0.0298* 0.5893 0.0173* *P < 0.05。 表 7 2组患者术后1月颌垫佩戴舒适度比较[n(%)]
Table 7. Comparison of comfort level between the two groups of patients with padded pads one month after surgery [n(%)]
分组 非常舒适 舒适一般 不舒适 舒适率(%) 软颌垫组(n = 30) 10(33.3) 16(53.3) 4(13.3) 86.7 硬颌垫组(n = 30) 3(10.0) 19(63.3) 8(26.7) 73.3 χ2 45.5381 25.5183 48.5181 47.0187 P 0.0343* 0.6994 0.0176* 0.0245* *P < 0.05。 -
[1] 雷杰,傅开元. 颌垫治疗颞下颌关节可复性盘前移位的机制及对临床治疗的启示[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志,2017,10(6):321-325. [2] 张志愿. 口腔颌面外科学[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2020: 230. [3] 徐高丽,肖芳,霍光. 颞下颌关节盘前移位后关节的适应性改建[J]. 口腔颌面外科杂志,2016,26(1):61-64. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-4979.2016.01.013 [4] 张清彬,朱明静,李传洁,等. 浅谈颞下颌关节紊乱病的咬合板治疗[J]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志,2020,14(3):138-143. [5] 阿丽娜·阿布都吉力力,迪丽努尔·阿吉,龚忠诚,等. 透明质酸钠注射联合牙合垫治疗颞下颌关节盘不可复性前移位的临床疗效分析[J]. 中国美容医学,2015,24(6):28-31. [6] 傅开元,胡敏,余强,等. 颞下颌关节常规 MRI 检查规范及关节盘 移位诊断标准的专家共识[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志,2020,55(9):608-612. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112144-20200514-00268 [7] 张善勇,杨驰,蔡协艺,等. 颞下颌关节镜下盘复位固定术的疗效评价[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志,2012,10(1):47-52. [8] 沈达,柳江太,李健. 改良切口关节盘锚固术治疗颞下颌关节盘不可复性前移位的临床评价[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志,2018,16(1):69-72. [9] 殷治国,邹茵,龚中坚. 颞下颌关节盘复位固定术后辅助咬合治疗的临床观察[J]. 上海口腔医学,2016,25(6):755-757. [10] 齐东元,马俊涛,张锐,等. 稳定颌垫治疗颞下颌关节不可复性盘前移位临床分析[J]. 口腔医学研究,2015,31(1):76-80. [11] 张玲阁,张睿,李喜红,等. 稳定性颌垫治疗不可复性关节盘前移位的疗效分析[J]. 中国现代药物应,2016,10(15):67-68. [12] 阚全龙, 朱雯雯, 徐世英, 等. 再定位牙合垫治疗颞下颌关节盘急性不可复性前移位的疗效分析[J], 河南医学研究, 2016, 25(6): 997-998. [13] 梁炎,高莹,岳铭阳,等. 再定位牙合板治疗下颌后退伴颞下颌关节盘可复性前移位的效果评价[J]. 郑州大学学报(医学版),2022,57(1):82-87. [14] 朱梦然,魏煦,孙卫斌,等. 手法复位结合稳定型咬合板治疗急性颞下颌关节盘不可复性前移位的疗效观察[J]. 口腔医学,2021,41(11):1000-1003. [15] 邱蔚六. 邱蔚六口腔颌面外科学[M]. 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 2008: 807. [16] 孙守福,张善勇,杨驰. 颞下颌关节盘锚固术应用进展[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志,2016,14(2):179-182. [17] 张莉,薛林佳,岳梨蓉,等. MDT 诊疗模式在颞下颌关节盘不可复性盘前移位中的治疗效果[J]. 昆明医科大学学报,2022,43(4):44-49. [18] 傅开元,马绪臣,张震康,等. 颞下颌关节紊乱指数临床应用评价[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志,2002,37(5):330-332. [19] 张善勇,杨驰,蔡协艺,等. MRI 评价颞下颌关节镜盘复位固定术的短期疗效[J]. 口腔颌面外科杂志,2008,18(1):31-34. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-4979.2008.01.008 [20] 张颖,卢锦芬,张清彬. 改良后牙咬合板治疗颞下颌关节盘不可复性前移位的效果评价[J]. 上海口腔医学,2021,30(2):210-213. [21] 郁春华,钱海馨. 稳定性牙合垫、手法及物理治疗对颞下颌关节盘不可复性移位的短期疗效评价[J]. 上海交通大学学报,2016,36(6):850-855. [22] Cai X Y,Jin J M,Yang C. et al. Changes in disc position,disclength,and condylar height in the temporomandibular joint withanterior disc displacement:A longitudinal retrospective magneticresonance imaging study[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg,2011,69(11):e340-346. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2011.02.038 [23] 谢丛蔓. 中国大陆地区颞下颌关节紊乱病流行趋势的系统评价及Meta分析[D]. 重庆: 重庆医科大学附属口腔医院, 2020. [24] 胡欣欣,朱耀旻,何柳婷,等. 109 例颞下颌关节紊乱病相关因素分析[J]. 上海口腔医学,2017,26(2):213-216. [25] 骆丹锋. 应用DC/TMD诊断标准探讨心理因素与颞下颌关节紊乱综合征的相关性研究[D]. 吉林: 吉林大学白求恩口腔医学院, 2021. [26] 刘海霞. 精神心理因素与颞下颌关节紊乱病的关联研究[D]. 新疆: 新疆医科大学第一临床医学院, 2012. [27] 骆丹锋,魏晓曦,周颖,等. 心理因素在颞下颌关节紊乱病诊疗中作用的研究进展[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志,2020,55(10):794-798. [28] 张雪. 颞下颌关节紊乱病病因研究文献回顾及366例TMD患者病因分析[D]. 甘肃: 兰州大学口腔医学院, 2017. [29] Su N,Lobbezoo F,van Wijk A,et al. Associations of pain intensity and pain-related disability with psychological and socio-demographic factors in patients with temporomandibular disorders:a cross-sectional study at a specialised dental clinic[J]. J Oral Rehabil,2017,44(3):187-196. doi: 10.1111/joor.12479 [30] Pihut M, Wisniewska G, Majewski S. Active repositioning of temporomandibular disc displacement without reduction[J]. J Stoma, 2013, 66(5): 650-662. [31] 姜鑫,范帅,蔡斌,等. 手法复位配合运动与颌垫治疗急性颞下颌关节盘不可复性前移位的近期疗效评价[J]. 上海口腔医学,2016,25(5):570-573. [32] Tripathi R,Sharma N,Dwivedi A N,et al. Severity of soft tissue injury within the temporomandibular joint following condylar fracture as seen on magnetic resonance imaging and its impact on outcome of functional management[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg,2015,73(12):2371-2379. [33] 傅开元. 颞下颌关节紊乱病影像学检查的必要性以及存在的问题[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志,2019,58(8):505-509. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1002-0098.2019.08.001 [34] Jaryna E,Pavol S,Martina S S,et al. Early diagnosis of degenerative changes in the artic- ular/fibrocartilaginous disc of the temporomandibular joint in patients with temporomandibular disorders using delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI at 3 Tesla-prelimin- ary results[J]. Magn Reson Imaging,2020,67:24-27. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2019.12.002