切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版) ›› 2009, Vol. 3 ›› Issue (04) : 430 -434. doi: 10.3877 / cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2009-04-014

临床研究

不同材料黏接正畸颊面管的临床效果对比研究
唐开红1,(), 王增全1   
  1. 1.528000 佛山市口腔医院口腔正畸科
  • 收稿日期:2009-03-28 出版日期:2009-08-01
  • 通信作者: 唐开红

Clinical evaluation of two kinds of orthodontic cement for directly bonded buccal tube

Kai-hong TANG1,(), Zeng-quan WANG1   

  1. 1.Foshan Stomatological Hospital, Foshan 528000, China
  • Received:2009-03-28 Published:2009-08-01
  • Corresponding author: Kai-hong TANG
引用本文:

唐开红, 王增全. 不同材料黏接正畸颊面管的临床效果对比研究[J/OL]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2009, 3(04): 430-434.

Kai-hong TANG, Zeng-quan WANG. Clinical evaluation of two kinds of orthodontic cement for directly bonded buccal tube[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Stomatological Research(Electronic Edition), 2009, 3(04): 430-434.

目的

探讨GC Fuji 正畸黏接剂和京津釉质黏接剂黏接磨牙颊面管的临床效果。

方法

将60 例患者随机分为两组,分别使用GC Fuji 正畸黏接剂和京津釉质黏接剂进行黏接型磨牙颊面管的黏接, 对其临床治疗过程中颊面管的脱落率及脱落后牙釉质上的黏接材料残留指数进行观察分析。

结果

GC Fuji 正畸黏接剂组的颊面管脱落率略低于京津釉质黏接剂组,但差异无统计学意义(P >0.05)。 两种黏接剂黏接后均显示,上颌第一恒磨牙上的颊面管脱落率最低,而上颌第二恒磨牙的颊面管脱落率最高;两组颊面管脱落后黏接材料牙面残留指数均多数为3,分别占总体分布的55.0% 和59.1%。

结论

黏接黏接型颊面管时使用GC Fuji 正畸黏接剂和京津釉质黏接剂的黏接效果差别不大;两组颊面管脱落时断裂界面均多数在牙釉质与黏接材料之间。

Objective

To investigate the clinical effect of two kinds of orthodontic cement in the bonding of directly bonded buccal tube.

Methods

60 cases were divided into two groups randomly, and directly bonded buccal tubes were bonded seperately with GC Fuji ortho bonding adhesive (A) and enamel bonding resin (B). The bonding failure rate and the adhesive remnant index were calculated.

Results

The bonding failure rates of the two groups were A <B, however had no significant difference (χ2=2.772,P >0.05). The bonding failure rate in the upper first molar was the lowest and that of the upper second molar was the highest in both of the two groups.Most of the adhesive remnant index in both group are 3.

Conclusions

The adhesive effect of GC Fuji ORTHO and enamel bonding resin has no significant difference in bonding directly bonded buccal tube. The fractures of the debondings in both groups were mainly between the enamel and the cement.

表1 两组颊面管在不同牙位的脱落率
表2 两组颊面管脱落率的χ2 检验(个)
表3 两组黏接材料牙面残留指数的分布情况(个)
1
周卉,陈文杰. 固定正畸中使用颊面管支抗牙与使用带环支抗牙卫生状况临床研究. 医学研究杂志, 2006,35(10):63-64.
2
胡炜,傅民魁. 树脂改良型玻璃离子黏固剂黏接正畸托槽的临床评价. 口腔正畸学, 2005,12(3):97-100.
3
Fricker JP. A new self-curing resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets in vivo. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1998,113(4):384-386.
4
Shammaa I, Ngan P, Kim H, et al. Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro and in vivo study. Angle Orthod, 1999,69(5):463-469.
5
袁元. 直接黏结颊面管与带环颊面管在直丝弓矫治技术中的对比研究. 临床口腔医学杂志, 2007,23(4):231-232.
6
梁海,刘进,郭鑫. 磨牙黏结型颊面管与带环正畸效果对比研究. 交通医学, 2007,21(4):458-459.
7
郭建青,汪波. 颊面管直接黏接技术及脱落原因分析. 现代口腔医学杂志, 1998,12(4):247.
[1] 吕长海, 凌均棨, 凌征宇. 不同黏接系统应用于乳牙复合体修复的研究[J/OL]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2009, 3(02): 133-139.
阅读次数
全文


摘要