Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Clin Cases. Jun 6, 2022; 10(16): 5297-5305
Published online Jun 6, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i16.5297
Published online Jun 6, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i16.5297
Table 1 Comparison of the general data between the groups
Group | Sex (male/female) | Dentition defects (full mouth/upper/lower) | Body mass index (kg/m2) | Age (yr) |
Control group (n = 43) | 20/23 | 8/12/23 | 24.83 ± 2.24 | 45.60 ± 3.26 |
Intervention group (n = 43) | 22/21 | 9/18/16 | 24.97 ± 2.22 | 45.74 ± 4.37 |
χ2/t value | 0.186 | 2.515 | 0.291 | 0.168 |
P value | 0.667 | 0.284 | 0.772 | 0.867 |
Table 2 Comparison of the treatment effect between the groups, n (%)
Group | Significantly effective | Effective | Ineffective | Overall response rate |
Control group (n = 43) | 15 (34.88) | 20 (46.51) | 8 (18.60) | 35 (81.40) |
Intervention group (n = 43) | 25 (58.14) | 16 (37.21) | 2 (4.65) | 41 (95.35) |
χ2/U value | 2.391 | 4.071 | ||
P value | 0.014 | 0.044 |
Table 3 Comparison of the cosmetic appearance between the groups, n (%)
Group | Neatly trimmed cosmetic appearance | Complete coverage | Normal occlusion |
Control group (n = 43) | 30 (69.77) | 29 (67.44) | 25 (58.14) |
Intervention group (n = 43) | 38 (88.37) | 37 (86.05) | 35 (81.40) |
χ2 value | 4.497 | 4.170 | 5.512 |
P value | 0.034 | 0.041 | 0.019 |
Table 4 Comparison of the dental function between the groups (mean ± SD)
Group | Masticatory function | Swallowing function | Phonic function | |||
Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | |
Control group (n = 43) | 1.91 ± 0.29 | 3.09 ± 0.43 | 2.65 ± 0.48 | 3.63 ± 0.54 | 2.56 ± 0.98 | 3.26 ± 0.98 |
Intervention group (n = 43) | 1.98 ± 0.27 | 3.37 ± 0.49 | 2.67 ± 0.47 | 3.86 ± 0.41 | 2.58 ± 0.59 | 3.97 ± 0.64 |
t value | 1.154 | 2.821 | 0.225 | 2.255 | 0.133 | 4.052 |
P value | 0.252 | 0.006 | 0.822 | 0.027 | 0.894 | 0.000 |
Table 5 Comparison of the implant deviations in the three-dimensional plane between the groups (mean ± SD)
Group | Top (mm) | Middle (mm) | Angle (°) |
Control group (n = 43) | 1.66 ± 0.97 | 1.51 ± 0.28 | 2.95 ± 1.23 |
Intervention group (n = 43) | 0.54 ± 0.34 | 0.43 ± 0.15 | 1.78 ± 0.69 |
t value | 7.122 | 22.295 | 5.440 |
P value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Table 6 Comparison of the quality of life between the groups (mean ± SD)
Group | Functional limitation | Physiological pain and discomfort | Psychological and social | Total score | ||||
Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | |
Control group (n = 43) | 3.70 ± 1.52 | 1.70 ± 0.96 | 2.37 ± 1.57 | 1.21 ± 0.41 | 3.26 ± 1.54 | 1.56 ± 0.98 | 9.33 ± 2.54 | 4.47 ± 1.32 |
Intervention group (n = 43) | 3.74 ± 1.38 | 1.21 ± 0.68 | 2.33 ± 1.32 | 0.65 ± 0.48 | 3.21 ± 1.77 | 1.09 ± 0.75 | 9.28 ± 2.48 | 2.95 ± 1.11 |
t value | 0.148 | 2.721 | 0.148 | 5.773 | 0.130 | 2.466 | 0.086 | 5.755 |
P value | 0.882 | 0.008 | 0.882 | 0.000 | 0.897 | 0.016 | 0.932 | 0.000 |
- Citation: Yan LB, Zhou YC, Wang Y, Li LX. Orthodontic treatment combined with 3D printing guide plate implant restoration for edentulism and its influence on mastication and phonic function. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(16): 5297-5305
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v10/i16/5297.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i16.5297