自锁托槽与普通直丝托槽矫治中尖牙远移速度的比较被引量：3

A comparison of canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs conventional brackets

导出

摘要目的:比较应用自锁托槽矫治器与普通直丝托槽矫治器矫治中尖牙向远中移动的速度。方法:选取需拔除上颌第一前磨牙的安氏Ⅱ1错颌患者40例,同一患者双侧上颌尖牙随机粘自锁托槽或普通直丝托槽,牙列排齐整平后,上颌换0.018英寸的不锈钢圆丝,用镍钛拉簧以150 g的力量,使上颌尖牙向远中移动。患者每隔28 d复诊1次。计算出使用不同托槽后尖牙向远中移动的速度。配对t检验进行统计分析。结果:普通直丝托槽矫治器尖牙向远中移动的速度明显快于自锁托槽矫治器(P﹤0.01)。结论:很多因素可以影响自锁托槽矫治器的摩擦力。 Objective： To compare the rates of retraction down an archwire of maxillary canine teeth when bracketed with a self-ligating bracket was used on one side and a conventional bracket on the other. Method： In 40 patients requiring maxillary premolar extraction, a self-ligating bracket （Forestdent Quick） was used on the maxillary canine on one side and a conventional bracket （3M Unitek） on the other. The teeth were retracted down a 0.018-inch stainless steel archwire, using a nickel titanium tension spring （150 g）. The rates of retraction were analyzed using a paired t-test. Result： The mean move- ment per 28 days for the conventional bracket was 1.18 mm and for the self-ligating bracket it was 0.95 mm. The differ- ences between the conventional and self-ligating brackets were statistically significant （P 〈 001）. Conclusion： Many factors could influence friction of self-ligating bracket.

作者唐林赵红艳孙婷婷刘纯纯

机构地区哈尔滨医科大学口腔医学院正畸科

出处《临床口腔医学杂志》 2014年第11期672-674,共3页 Journal of Clinical Stomatology

基金黑龙江省教育厅基金项目(12511222)

关键词自锁托槽传统直丝托槽尖牙远中移动 Canine retraction Self-ligating bracket Conventional bracket

分类号 R783.5 [医药卫生—口腔医学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献8

1Thorstenson GA,Kusy RP. Comparison of resistance to sliding be- tween different self-ligating brackets with second-order angulatlon in the dry and saliva states [J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2002,121 (4) :472-482.
2Miles PG, Weyant 1LI, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon2 vs con- ventional twin brackets during initial alignment [J]. Angle Orthod, 2005,76: 480-485.
3Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional brackets for initial align- ment: is there a difference ? [J]. Aust Orthod J, 2005, 21 : 123-127.
4Thomas S,Sherriff M,Birnie D. A comparative in vitro study of the frictional characteristics of two types of self- ligating brackets and two types of pre-adjusted edgewise brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures [J]. Eur J Orthod, 1998,20 (5) : 589-596.
5Read-Ward GE,Jones SP, Davies EH. A comparison of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems [J]. Br J Orthod, 1997, 24 (3) : 309-317.
6Henao SP, Kusy RP. Evaluation of the frictional resistance of con- ventional and self-ligating bracket designs using standardized arch- wires and dental typodonts[l]. Angle Orthod, 2004, 74 (2) : 202-211.
7Henao SP, Kusy RP. Frictional evaluations of dental typodont models using four self-ligating designs and a conventional design [J]. Angle Orthod, 2004,75 (1) : 75-78.
8Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Effect of archwire size and material on the resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets with secand-order angulation in the dry state [J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2002, 122 (2) : 295-305.