应用自锁托槽和传统结扎托槽矫治对牙周状况影响的比较

Difference of periodontal implication between self-ligating bracket and conventional bracket

目的比较自锁托槽和传统结扎托槽对正畸患者牙周状况的影响。方法收集12~16岁青少年正畸患者120例，根据托槽种类随机分为4组，每组30例，其中传统托槽组使用传统结扎托槽作为对照组，Smart?clip组、Bio?Quick组及DamonQ组使用3种不同自锁托槽作为试验组，于矫治前（T0）、矫治后1（T1）、3（T2）、6（T3）个月分别测量下颌切牙的菌斑指数、牙龈指数和探诊深度。结果T0期和T1期，各组相关牙周指数较治疗前差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；矫治后3、6个月，不论是自锁托槽组还是传统托槽组，菌斑指数和牙龈指数同T0、T1相比逐渐升高，且差异有统计学意义（P<0.05），但牙周探诊深度仍无明显区别（P>0.05）。矫治后3个月，3个自锁托槽组的菌斑指数及牙龈指数明显低于传统托槽组，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。矫治后6个月，自锁托槽组的菌斑指数及牙龈指数同对照组相比也有显著降低（P<0.05）。但在不同矫治时期，不同种类自锁托槽牙周指数间比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论与传统结扎托槽相比，自锁托槽在控制菌斑及牙龈出血方面存在优势，但对牙周袋深度的影响无明显差别。

Objective To compare the influences on periodontal condition between self-ligating brackets and conventional brackets. Methods A total of 120 subjects (age range between twelve and sixteen) were selected which were averaged into four groups (C, S1, S2, S3) at random by different bracket types. Group C included 40 patients with conventionally-ligated bracket as control group, and the others (S1, S2, S3) included 40 patients respectively with self-ligating brackets as experimental groups. Before treatment and 1, 3, 6 months after beginning of treatment respectively, the periodontal parameters PLI, GI, PD were examined. Results There was no significant difference between the 4 groups between T0?T1. 3, 6 months after the orthodontic treatment, no matter conventionally?ligated bracket or self-ligating brackets, the periodontal parameters PLI, GI of the tested teeth increased significantly than before, however, the values of PD did not show any significant difference. Three and six months after beginning of treatment, PL, SBI, PD between the conventional and self-ligating groups have significant differences (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences at all the time intervals between the self-ligating brackets groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion The self-ligating brackets have an advantage over conventional brackets with respect to the periodontal improving of control of plaque and gingival bleeding, but not for periodontal pocket depth.