3种无托槽隐形矫治器附件粘接方法的比较研究

目的 比较全酸蚀粘接剂、自酸蚀粘接剂和树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀3种材料粘接无托槽隐形矫治器附件的操作时间和临床效果。方法 将采用无托槽隐形矫治器矫治的30例错牙合畸形患者（附件156个）随机分为3组，每组10例。A组采用3M Adper Single Bond 2全酸蚀粘接剂和3M Z350纳米充填树脂粘接附件，B组采用3M Adper Easy One自酸蚀粘接剂和3M Z350纳米充填树脂粘接附件，C组直接采用GC Fuji Ortho LC树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀粘接附件。记录每个附件的操作时间，评价粘接时、治疗1个月和6个月时3组附件的失败情况。结果 C组附件的操作时间较A、B组短（P<0.01）。3组附件之间的粘接失败率无统计学差异（P>0.05），同一组内不同时间的粘接失败率也无统计学差异（P>0.05）。结论 3种材料粘接附件的稳定性均能达到满意的效果，但树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀操作简便，更适宜临床推广。

Comparative study of three bonding methods in attaching removable thermoplastic appliances

Objective To evaluate the operation time and clinical effect of three types of materials (i.e., total-etching adhesive, self-etching adhesive, resin-modified glass ionomer cement) that are used to bond removable thermoplastic appliances. Methods Thirty malocclusion patients (156 attachments) with removable thermoplastic appliances were randomly divided into three groups, with 10 individuals each. Attachments of groups A and B were bonded using 3M Adper Single Bond 2 and 3M Adper Easy One, respectively; both adhesives utilized 3M Z350 nano composite resin. Attachments of group C was directly bonded using GC Fuji Ortho LC. The operation time of each attachment was recorded. Failure rates of adhesion were evaluated during adhesion, 1 month after treatment, and 6 months after treatment. Results The operation time of group C was shorter than those of groups A and B (P<0.01). Significant difference of adhesion failure rates was not found among the three groups (P>0.05). No significant difference of adhesion failure rates was also observed in different times of the same group (P>0.05). Conclusion The attachment stability of the three types of materials achieved satisfactory effects. However, the operation method of resin-modified glass ionomer cement is more concise and suitable for clinical promotion.