研究MRC肌功能矫治器和传统舌刺/栅功能矫治器治疗儿童开HE错HE畸形的临床疗效，以及舒适性、依从性、显效性和模型分析等方面的差异。

12例就诊于苏州口腔医院正畸科的替牙期开HE错HE畸形儿童，年龄6 ~ 11岁（男性5例、女性7例），随机数字表法平均分为两组：MRC肌功能矫治器治疗组（简称MRC组）和传统舌刺/栅矫治器治疗组（简称舌刺/栅组），每组6例。1个月后使用视觉模拟评分（VAS）量表评价佩戴舒适性，用Morisky依从性量表评价患者依从性。分别记录开HE纠正所用的时间，从而评价临床治疗显效的速度，测量治疗前与治疗后牙弓宽度的变化，并用t检验来评价两组之间的差异。

两组治疗效果均确切有效，其中MRC组在舒适度上显著优于舌刺/栅组，依从性方面两组差异没有统计学意义，而显效性方面，MRC组的评分为（9.9 ± 1.6）个月，而舌刺/栅组的评分为（7.2 ± 1.6）个月，差异有统计学意义（sig = 0.790，t = 4.128，P<0.001），舌刺/栅组要优于MRC组。另外，舌刺/栅组上颌第一磨牙区的牙弓宽度在治疗前与治疗后差异没有统计学意义。MRC组上牙弓治疗前与治疗后的尖牙区宽度（53-63）分别为（33.0 ± 1.8）和（36.7 ± 2.1）mm，第一磨牙区宽度（16-26）分别为（46.7 ± 1.7）和（48.4 ± 1.9）mm，均明显增加，差异有统计学意义（t_尖牙区 = -5.004，P_尖牙区<0.001；t_{第一磨牙区} = -5.063，P_{第一磨牙区}<0.001）。MRC组下牙弓治疗前与治疗后的尖牙区宽度（73-83）和第一磨牙区宽度（36-46）也明显增加，差异有统计学意义。

MRC肌功能矫治器治疗相比于传统舌刺/栅矫治器治疗，戴用更加舒适，依从性尚可且效果确切，推荐舌栅短期使用，两者结合使用效果更佳。

To guide the clinical treatment by comparing the clinical effect, comfort, compliance and effectiveness of MRC myofunctional appliance and traditional tongue function appliances in the treatment of children′s open bite malocclusion.

A total of 12 children (6-11 years, 5 male and 7 female) children with open bite malocclusion at the department of orthodontics of Suzhou Stomatological Hospital were randomly divided into two groups: MRC myofunctional appliance group and traditional tongue spur group. VAS was used to evaluate the wearing comfort; Morisky scale was used to evaluate the patients′ compliance; the treatment time to correct the open bite was recorded respectively to evaluate the clinical treatment efficiency; and the changes of dental arch width were measured by analyzing the model. The t-test was used to evaluate the difference between the two groups.

Both the therapeutic effect of the two groups were effective. The comfort of the group wearing MRC myofunctional appliance was significantly better than that of the traditional tongue spur group, and there was no significant difference in compliance between the two groups. The score of the treatment with MRC myofunctional appliance was (9.9±1.6) months, while the score with traditional tongue spur appliance was (7.2 ± 1.6) months. The variance between the two groups was homogeneous, and the effectiveness of the traditional tongue spur group was slightly better than that of the MRC myofunctional appliance group, with significant difference (sig = 0.790, t = 4.128, P<0.001) . In addition, there was no significant difference in the width of dental arch in the maxillary first molar area before and after treatment in traditional tongue spur group. The width of 53-63 before and after treatment in MRC myofunctional appliance group was (33.0 ± 1.8) and (36.7 ± 2.1) mm, the width of 16-26 was (46.7 ± 1.7) and (48.4 ± 1.9) mm, and the difference was statistically significant (t_cuspid = -5.004, P_cuspid<0.001; t_{first molar} = -5.063, P_{first molar}<0.001) . In a word, the width of anterior and posterior segment of dental arch in MRC myofunctional appliance group increased significantly.

Compared with the traditional tongue spur therapy, the MRC myofunctional appliance group is more comfortable and acceptable. This technique is effective in treatment of openbite. Combined use of the two techniques are recommanded.