自锁托槽非拔牙矫治下牙列拥挤的临床研究

目的 比较自锁托槽和传统结扎式托槽非拔牙矫治牙列拥挤患者的下牙列变化,探讨自锁托槽解除牙列拥挤的机制.方法 选择26例下牙列拥挤患者,分为自锁组和传统组,每组13例,分别使用自锁托槽(Damon3)和传统托槽(传统结扎式托槽)进行非拔牙矫治.对矫治前后变化进行配对t检验,逐步回归分析拥挤解除机制以及影响下切牙唇倾度改变量的相关因素.结果 矫治前后两组患者下颌尖牙间、前磨牙间牙弓宽度改变量及下切牙唇倾度改变量比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.1);矫治后自锁组下颌第一磨牙间牙弓宽度增加1.42 mm、下切牙凸距增加2.66 mm,传统组下颌第一磨牙间牙弓宽度增加0.65 mm、下切牙凸距增加1.57 mm,两组比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.1).回归分析显示,自锁组对下切牙唇倾度变化量解释的总测定系数高达96.6%,被选入模型的变量为矫治前下颌拥挤度、下颌平面角、第一磨牙间牙弓宽度,以及矫治前后尖牙及第一前磨牙间牙弓宽度改变量.结论 非拔牙矫治下牙列拥挤时,自锁组和传统组患者均出现下切牙唇倾及下牙弓宽度增加,自锁组第一磨牙间牙弓宽度增加量及下切牙前移量较传统组多;自锁组下切牙唇倾度的改变不仅受拥挤度和矫治前牙弓宽度影响,而且受患者自身骨面型及牙弓宽度变化的影响.     

Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs conventional edgewise brackets

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.Materials and Methods:In 43 patients requiring maxillary premolar extraction, a self-ligating bracket (Damon3, SmartClip) was used on the maxillary canine on one side and a conventional bracket (Victory Series) on the other. The teeth were retracted down a 0.018-inch stainless steel archwire, using a medium Sentalloy retraction spring (150 g). The rates of retraction were analyzed using a paired t-test.Results:The mean movement per 28 days for the conventional bracket was 1.17 mm. For the Damon bracket it was 0.9 mm and for the SmartClip bracket it was 1.10 mm. The differences between the conventional and self-ligating brackets were statistically significant: paired t-test, SmartClip, P < .0043; Damon3, P < .0001).Conclusion:The retraction rate is faster with the conventional bracket, probably because of the narrower bracket width of the self-ligating brackets.     

自锁托槽与普通直丝托槽矫治中尖牙远移速度的比较

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。     

Orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional edgewise twin brackets

Abstract Objective: To conduct a prospective and randomized study of the efficiency of orthodontic treatment with self-ligating edgewise brackets (SL; Time2 brand, American Orthodontics) and conventional edgewise twin brackets (CE; Gemini brand, 3M). Materials and Methods: One hundred consecutive patients were randomized to treatment with either SL or CE brackets. The participants were treated by one of three specialists in orthodontics and with continuous instructions alternately by five orthodontic assistants according to our normal treatment routine (ie, modified 0.022″ MBT preadjusted edgewise technique). The treatments were evaluated in terms of overall treatment time, number of visits, and treatment outcome using the Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON). The number of emergency appointments, number of archwires, overjet, relative space, and extractions at treatment start were noted. Results: After dropouts, the analyzed material consisted of 44 patients treated with SL (mean age 15.3?years, mean ICON 60.7, 70.4% female) and 46 patients treated with CE (mean age 15.0?years, mean ICON 56.5, 71.7% female). There were no statistically significant differences between the SL and CE groups in terms of mean treatment time in months (20.4 vs 18.2), mean number of visits (15.5 vs 14.1), mean ICON scores after treatment (13.2 vs 11.9), or mean ICON improvement grade (7.9 vs 9.1). Conclusion: Orthodontic treatment with SL brackets does not reduce treatment time or number of appointments and does not affect posttreatment ICON scores or ICON improvement grade compared with CE brackets.     

自锁托槽与传统托槽矫治器对牙周健康影响的比较研究

目的 对比戴用自锁托槽与传统托槽矫治器后牙周指数的变化.材料和方法选取12～18岁正畸患者80例,按矫治器类型分为两组:实验组,40例采用AO公司生产的T3自锁托槽矫正的患者;对照组,采用杭州西湖公司生产的徐氏托槽矫正的患者40例.由同一牙周专科医师分别检测80例患者治疗前和治疗6个月的各项牙周指数(GI,PLI,SBI,PD).结果 治疗6个月后两组间牙周指数(GI,PLI,SBI,PD)差异无显著性.结论 自锁托槽矫治器不会更有利于牙周组织的健康,牙周的健康状况取决于患者的口腔卫生状况.     

自锁托槽与传统托槽矫治器对牙周健康影响的比较研究

目的 对比戴用自锁托槽与传统托槽矫治器后牙周指数的变化.材料和方法选取12～18岁正畸患者80例,按矫治器类型分为两组：实验组,40例采用AO公司生产的T3自锁托槽矫正的患者;对照组,采用杭州西湖公司生产的徐氏托槽矫正的患者40例.由同一牙周专科医师分别检测80例患者治疗前和治疗6个月的各项牙周指数（GI,PLI,SBI,PD）.结果 治疗6个月后两组间牙周指数（GI,PLI,SBI,PD）差异无显著性.结论 自锁托槽矫治器不会更有利于牙周组织的健康,牙周的健康状况取决于患者的口腔卫生状况.     

应用Quick自锁托槽与传统结扎式托槽在拔牙矫治中的比较研究

目的 探讨Quick自锁托槽与传统结扎式托槽在拔牙病例矫治中治疗时间和治疗效果方面是否有差异。方法 选择32例需拔牙矫正病例,随机分为2组,分别使用Quick自锁托槽和传统结扎式托槽。记录并分析2组患者排齐整平、关闭间隙和总的治疗时间。每位患者治疗前、后均拍摄头颅定位侧位片,并对治疗前、后的X线头影测量结果进行比较分析。组内、组间均采用配对t检验。 结果 2组患者均获满意矫正效果。2组患者排齐整平、关闭间隙及整个疗程所需时间的差异均没有统计学意义（P＞0.05）。2组间治疗前后的X线头影测量结果中,只有∠SNB和LL-E2组间的差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）,其余各项测量指标均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 Quick自锁托槽与传统结扎式托槽相比,在拔牙病例的疗程和疗效方面并无明显优势。     

Comparison of static friction with self-ligating,modified slot design and conventional brackets

Objective

To compare the static frictional forces generated at the bracket/wire interface of stainless steel brackets with different geometries and angulations, combined with orthodontic wires of different diameters.

Material and Methods

The frictional forces were evaluated with three different types of metal brackets: a passive self-ligating (SmartClip^TM, 3M/Unitek, Monrovia, USA), with a modified slot design (Mini Uni Twin^TM, 3M/Unitek, Monrovia, USA) and conventional (Kirium, Abzil, São José do Rio Preto, Brazil). The samples were mounted in a testing device with three different angulations and tested with 0.014" and 0.018" stainless steel wires (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, USA). The static frictional force was measured using a universal testing machine (DL 500, EMIC^®, São José dos Pinhais, Brazil) with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Statistical analysis was performed by two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni''s post hoc test.

Results

There was a significant difference (p<0.05) in static friction when the three types of brackets were tested with the same wire size. The wire diameter influenced friction only when the brackets had a 10º angulation (p<0.05). The angulation influenced friction (p<0.05) when the brackets were associated with a 0.018" wire.

Conclusion

Brackets with a modified slot design showed intermediate static frictional force values between the conventional and self-ligating brackets tested.     

Treatment time,outcome, and anchorage loss comparisons of self-ligating and conventional brackets

Objective:To compare the treatment time, outcome, and anchorage loss among orthodontic patients treated by self-ligating brackets (SLBs) and conventional brackets (CBs).Materials and Methods:A retrospective cohort study compared 34 patients (SLB group) treated by SmartClip brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) to 35 patients (CB group) treated by conventional preadjusted Victory series brackets (3M Unitek) and ligated by stainless steel wire ligatures. Pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) lateral cephalograms were traced and analyzed using Pancherz sagittal-occlusion analysis to obtain skeletal and dental changes in the maxilla and the mandible. The dental cast models were assessed by the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index for the treatment outcomes.Results:The mean treatment time for SLBs (19.19 months) did not show a statistically significant difference from 21.25 months of CBs; the treatment time and pretreatment PAR scores were strongly correlated. There was no difference in anchorage loss between the SLB and CB groups. There were significant dental and skeletal changes among adolescent orthodontic patients regardless of the bracket used. The lingual inclination of the mandibular incisors in the CB group was 3.62° more than in the SLB group (P < .01).Conclusions:The treatment time and anchorage loss are not influenced by the type of bracket used. There are significant dental and skeletal changes among adolescent orthodontic patients regardless of the bracket used. There is significantly greater lingual inclination of mandibular incisors in the CB group than in the SLB group.     

主动、被动自锁托槽摩擦力的meta分析研究

目的 采用meta分析的方法评价主动自锁托槽与被动自锁托槽摩擦力的大小。方法 检索Pubmed、荷兰医学文摘(Embase)、Google文献检索、中国期刊网(CNKI)和中国生物医学文献数据库(CBMdisc)数据库,搜集从建库至2011年9月公开发表的关于主动、被动自锁托槽摩擦力的随机对照实验。利用Revman4.2软件及Stata 7.0软件对纳入meta分析的研究进行定量分析,以评价主动、被动自锁托槽与不锈钢丝结合时滑动摩擦力的大小。结果 有6项研究适合做meta分析。结果显示:主动、被动自锁托槽在与圆丝结合时,摩擦力的大小没有统计学差异;而与不锈钢方丝结合时主动自锁托槽的摩擦力大于被动自锁托槽,差异具有统计学意义。结论 在矫治初期,主动、被动自锁托槽摩擦力没有统计学差异,而在矫治后期,主动自锁托槽摩擦力大于被动自锁托槽。     

Effects of self-ligating and conventional brackets on halitosis and periodontal conditions

Objective:To evaluate the effects of fixed orthodontic treatment with steel-ligated conventional brackets and self-ligating brackets on halitosis and periodontal health.Materials and Methods:Sixty patients, at the permanent dentition stage aged 12 to 18 years, who had Angle Class I malocclusion with mild-to-moderate crowding were randomly selected. Inclusion criteria were nonsmokers, without systematic disease, and no use of antibiotics and oral mouth rinses during the 2-month period before the study. The patients were subdivided into three groups randomly: the group treated with conventional brackets (group 1, n  =  20) ligated with steel ligature wires, the group treated with self-ligating brackets (group 2, n  =  20), and the control group (group 3, n  =  20). The periodontal records were obtained 1 week before bonding (T1), immediately before bonding (T2), 1 week after bonding (T3), 4 weeks after bonding (T4), and 8 weeks after bonding (T5). Measurements of the control group were repeated within the same periods. The volatile sulfur components determining halitosis were measured with the Halimeter at T2, T3, T4, and T5. A two-way repeated measures of analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the groups statistically.Results:No statistically significant group × time interactions were found for plaque index, gingival index, pocket depth, bleeding on probing, and halitosis, which means three independent groups change like each other by time. The risk of tongue coating index (TCI) being 2 was 10.2 times higher at T1 than at T5 (P < .001). Therefore, the probability of higher TCI was decreased by time in all groups.Conclusions:The self-ligating brackets do not have an advantage over conventional brackets with respect to periodontal status and halitosis.     

Friction of conventional and self-ligating brackets using a 10 bracket model

The friction generated by various bracket-archwire combinations previously has been studied using in vitro testing models that included only one or three brackets. This study was performed using a specially designed apparatus that included 10 aligned brackets to compare the frictional resistance generated by conventional stainless steel brackets, self-ligating Damon SL II brackets and Time Plus brackets coupled with stainless steel, nickel-titanium and beta-titanium archwires. All brackets had a 0.022-inch slot, and five different sizes of orthodontic wire alloys used. Each bracket-archwire combination was tested 10 times, and each test was performed with a new bracket-wire sample. Time Plus self-ligating brackets generated significantly lower friction than both the Damon SL II self-ligating brackets and Victory brackets. However, the analysis of the various bracket-archwire combinations showed that Damon SL II brackets generated significantly lower friction than the other brackets when tested with round wires and significantly higher friction than Time Plus when tested with rectangular archwires. Beta-titanium archwires generated higher frictional resistances than the other archwires. All brackets showed higher frictional forces as the wire size increased. These findings suggest that the use of an in vitro testing model that includes 10 brackets can give additional interesting information about the frictional force of the various bracket-archwires combinations to the clinician and the research worker.     

自锁托槽与传统托槽矫治拔牙病例的疗程对比研究

目的 比较自锁托槽与传统直丝托槽矫治拔牙病例的疗程.方法 纳入需拔牙矫治的正畸病例60例随机分为2组,30例为试验组,采用Damon Q自锁托槽进行矫治,30例为对照组,采用传统直丝托槽矫治,记录并比较治疗完成的时间.结果 试验组平均完成时间为640 d,对照组平均完成时间为686 d,两组差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 自锁托槽在治疗拔牙病例时与传统直丝托槽相比,疗程未见明显的时间优势.     

�����������봫ͳ����ʽ���������ڰ�������Ч�ʶԱ��о�

目的比较自锁矫治器与传统结扎式矫治器用于拔牙矫治病例的矫治效率。方法从2006—2010年青岛大学医学院附属医院口腔正畸科就诊并完成治疗的错畸形病例中选择使用Damon 3MX自锁矫治器(自锁组)与传统结扎式矫治器(结扎组)拔除4颗第一前磨牙病例各15例,分别记录其整平排齐时间、关闭拔牙间隙时间、总体治疗时间及有效复诊次数,并将数据进行统计学分析。结果整平排齐时间:自锁组为(5.8±2.10)个月,结扎组为(4.5±0.71)个月;关闭拔牙间隙时间:自锁组为(8.3±3.65)个月,结扎组为(6.6±2.99)个月;总体治疗时间:自锁组为(20.4±5.04)个月,结扎组为(16.8±2.66)个月;有效复诊次数:自锁组为(19.0±4.83)次,结扎组为(16.4±3.41)次。自锁组的整平排齐时间、关闭拔牙间隙时间、总体治疗时间及有效复诊次数均较结扎组多,但两组间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论在拔牙矫治中,Damon 3MX自锁矫治器并未表现出比传统结扎式矫治器更高的矫治效率。