两种正畸粘结剂粘结颊面管临床效果评价及护理配合

Clinical effect evaluation of two orthodontic binders in bonding of buccal tube and nursing cooperation

目的探讨两种正畸粘结剂粘结颊面管临床效果及护理配合。方法随机选取100例正畸患者,每位患者左侧上下第一磨牙均采用GC玻璃离子粘结剂粘结,右侧上下第一磨牙均采用3M化学粘结剂粘结。详细记录3个月内颊面管粘结后不同部位颊管的脱落情况,以及第一恒磨牙颊侧釉质脱矿程度。结果 GC玻璃离子粘结剂和3M化学粘结剂的脱落率分别为17.36%和28.57%,有显著性差异(χ2=9.21,P<0.05);GC玻璃离子粘结剂脱矿率为11.5%,而3M化学粘结剂为23%,也有显著性差异(χ2=9.26,P<0.05)。结论 GC玻璃离子粘结剂较3M化学粘结剂更适合磨牙颊面管的粘结,粘结过程中可操作时间充足,不必严格隔湿,粘结力满足临床要求。GC玻璃离子粘结剂可缓慢释放氟离子,防止牙釉质脱矿。

Objective To discuss the clinical effects of two orthodontic binders on the bonding of buccal tube and the nursing cooperation.Methods A hundred patients receiving the orthodontic treatment were randomly selected.Their upper and mandibular first molars on the left side were bonded with GC glass ionomer cement,while the first molars on the right side were bonded with 3M enamel adhesive.Within three months,the expulsion of buccal tube at different parts and the degree of buccal side enamal demineralization of the sixth-year molar were recorded.Results The expulsion rates of the GC glass ionomer cement and the 3M enamel adhesive were 17.36% and 28.57%,respectively,which had significant differences（χ2=9.21,P0.05）.And the enamel demineralization rates of those two binders were 11.5% and 23%,respectively,which also had significant differences（χ2=9.26,P0.05）.Conclusion Compared with the 3M enamel adhesive,the GC glass ionomer cement is more suitable for the binding of molar buccal tube.During the binding process,the operational time is sufficient,and strict prevention of saliva is not needed.The binding strength is clinically acceptable.The GC glass ionomer cement can slowly release fluoride ions in order to prevent enamel demineralization.