摘要
目的：探讨自酸蚀光固化托槽粘结剂在正畸临床中的应用效果。方法选择2013年7月∽2014年8月正畸患者60例，按照随机的原则编为1∽60号，奇数号病人右侧的A区和D区应用自酸蚀处理液，左侧的 B区和C区使用传统酸蚀方法（37％磷酸酸蚀）和3M光固化的处理液（Transbond？ XT），偶数号病人与奇数号病人相反，右侧使用传统酸蚀方法（37％磷酸酸蚀）和3M光固化的处理液，左侧应用自酸蚀处理液，统一配合使用3M光固化粘结剂。累计粘结1020颗da-mon Q托槽。以上所有实验步骤均由同一操作者进行，观察时间为12个月。结果自酸蚀系统与传统粘结操作时间的比较有统计学差异，前者粘结时间明显小于后者，两者在脱落率的比较上无差异；两种方法粘结托槽时，上颌与下颌及前牙与前磨牙在脱落率的比较上无显著性差异。结论自酸蚀的方法粘结托槽完全能达到传统方法粘结托槽的强度，自酸蚀方法更加节省时间；两种方法在上下颌及前后牙的比较上，托槽脱落率无差异。
Objective To compare the time cost and failure rate of metal brackets bonded with two different enamel surface preparation techniques： 3M Transbond Plus、self -etching primer （ SEP） and 3M Transbond XT、conventional etching primer. Methods Sixty patients were included in this study.According with the principle of randomly as 1-60 number, a total of 1020 Da-mon Q brackets were bonded;For each patient, SEP （Transbond Plus SEP, 3M Unitek） and CM （37%phosphoric acid） were used in alternate quadrants.All brackets were bonded by the same investigator after pumicing and rinsing of all of the teeth.The number, site and date of first -time bracket failures were monitored throughout orthodontic treatment （mean, 12 months）.Results There were no statistically significant difference between the failure rates of the two echniques , but the self-etching primer （ SEP） bonding time was significantly less than that of the latter .There were no significant difference between the mandibular and maxillary or anterior teeth and premolars.Conclusion 3M Transbond Plus, the self-etching primer bonding time is significantly less than that of 3M Transbond XT, conventional two-step etch and primer method.There are no significant difference between the failure rates of the mandibular and maxillary or anterior teeth and premolars.
出处
《现代医院》
2015年第8期36-38,共3页
Modern Hospitals
基金
广东省医学科研基金(编号:B2014606)
广州市荔湾区科技局科技项目(编号:20141215045)
