两种正畸粘接剂临床应用效果对比分析.docVIP

两种正畸粘接剂临床应用效果对比分析 朱山成 韩蔚蔚 马素霞 【摘要】目的：比较2种临床常用不同类型的正畸粘接剂托槽脱落率。方法：选取正畸非拔牙治疗病例20例，采用自身对照方法在口内相对象限分别使用京津釉质粘接剂与TF非调和型粘接剂进行托槽粘接，然后使用标准方丝弓矫正技术进行综合性治疗，并记录托槽第一次脱落情况。12个月后，对托槽脱落数据进行统计学分析。结果：使用京津釉质粘接剂象限内共脱落托槽22个，脱落率11%，而使用TF非调和型粘接剂象限内共脱落托槽20个，脱落率10% 。两组之间无显著性统计学差异(P0.05)。结论：2种正畸粘接剂都能满足临床治疗需要，但相对操作应用中TF非调和性粘接剂更占优势，具有良好的临床应用前景。 【关键词】正畸 粘接 托槽 脱落 【中图分类号】：R78 【文献标识码】A Two kinds of orthodontic bonding agent clinical application effect of comparative analysis ZHU Shan Cheng HAN Wei Wei MA Su Xia 【 abstract 】 objective: to compare clinical commonly used two kinds of different types of orthodontic adhesive braces off rate. Method: selection of orthodontic tooth treatment cases, 20 patients with its control method is used in relative quadrant respectively using the Beijing and tianjin in the sprue enamel adhesive with TF non-harmonic type adhesive for orthodontic bracket bonding and then use standard silk bow correction technology for comprehensive treatment, and record the braces off for the first time. After 12 months, the braces off data for statistical analysis. Results: using a total loss in the Beijing and tianjin enamel adhesive quadrant braces 22, loss rate is 11%, and using TF non-harmonic type binder quadrant were fall off braces 20, loss rate was 10%. There was no significant statistical differences between two groups (P 0.05). Conclusion: the two kinds of orthodontic bonding agent can meet the needs of the clinical treatment, but the relative operation application of TF non-harmonic dope is more dominant, has a good prospect of clinical application. 【 key words 】 orthodontic adhesive braces fall off 固定正畸治疗主要是通过粘接于牙面的托槽施力，进行牙齿的各向移动，而可靠的粘接效果不仅可以减少医生的工作量，而且能提高正畸治疗效果。为此， 托槽粘接的牢固程度、托槽的脱落率与正畸治疗的效果关系密切。Wenderoth [1] 等曾提出理想的正畸粘接剂应该具有足够的初始强度，并在矫治期间保持稳定，能耐受口腔内各种力量，不易被口腔环境降解等特点。因此，本科室选取常用的2种粘接剂对同一类型托槽在口内粘接效果进行对比分析，以期为临床正畸治疗选择合适的粘接剂提供依据。 1、材料和方法 1.1 研究对象 选择来我科接受固定矫治且是非拔牙治疗的恒牙列患者20人，400颗牙，男8人，女12人，年龄为 12 -16 岁。均使用标准方