Department of Orthodontics, Östersund hospital, Östersund, Sweden.
Angle Orthod. 2012 Sep;82(5):929-34. doi: 10.2319/101911-653.1. Epub 2012 Mar 7.
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).
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.
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).
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.
对自锁托槽矫治技术(SL;Time2 品牌,美国 Orthodontics)与传统方丝弓托槽矫治技术(CE;Gemini 品牌,3M)的疗效进行前瞻性、随机研究。
连续 100 例患者被随机分为 SL 组或 CE 组。所有患者均由三位正畸专家进行治疗,同时按照我们的常规治疗方案(即改良 0.022"MBT 预成方丝弓技术)由五名正畸助手交替给予连续指导。采用复杂性、结局和需要指数(ICON)评估总体治疗时间、就诊次数和治疗结局。记录急诊就诊次数、弓丝数量、覆、牙弓间隙和治疗初始拔牙情况。
剔除失访者后,共纳入 44 例 SL 组(平均年龄 15.3 岁,ICON 平均 60.7,女性占 70.4%)和 46 例 CE 组(平均年龄 15.0 岁,ICON 平均 56.5,女性占 71.7%)患者。SL 组和 CE 组的平均治疗时间(20.4 个月比 18.2 个月)、平均就诊次数(15.5 次比 14.1 次)、治疗后 ICON 评分(13.2 分比 11.9 分)和 ICON 改善等级(7.9 分比 9.1 分)差异均无统计学意义。
与 CE 托槽相比,自锁托槽矫治技术并未缩短治疗时间或减少就诊次数,也未影响治疗后 ICON 评分或 ICON 改善等级。