• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

自锁托槽和传统托槽的治疗时间、疗效和支抗丢失比较。

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

机构信息

Jilin University College of Dentistry, Changchun, China.

出版信息

Angle Orthod. 2013 Mar;83(2):280-5. doi: 10.2319/041912-326.1. Epub 2012 Aug 17.

DOI:10.2319/041912-326.1
PMID:22900592
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8793646/
Abstract

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.

摘要

目的

比较自锁托槽(SLB)和传统托槽(CB)矫治患者的治疗时间、疗效和支抗丢失。

材料和方法

回顾性队列研究比较了 34 例使用 SmartClip 托槽(3M Unitek,Monrovia,加利福尼亚州)治疗的患者(SLB 组)和 35 例使用传统预成矫正 Victory 系列托槽(3M Unitek)并用不锈钢结扎丝结扎治疗的患者(CB 组)。对治疗前(T1)和治疗后(T2)的侧位头颅侧位片进行描记和分析,采用 Pancherz 矢状-咬合分析获得上颌和下颌的骨骼和牙齿变化。使用 Peer Assessment Rating(PAR)指数评估牙模以获得治疗效果。

结果

SLB 的平均治疗时间(19.19 个月)与 CB 的 21.25 个月相比没有统计学上的显著差异;治疗时间和治疗前 PAR 评分呈强相关。SLB 和 CB 组之间的支抗丢失没有差异。无论使用哪种托槽,青少年正畸患者都有明显的牙齿和骨骼变化。CB 组下颌切牙的舌倾角度比 SLB 组大 3.62°(P <.01)。

结论

治疗时间和支抗丢失不受托槽类型的影响。无论使用哪种托槽,青少年正畸患者都有明显的牙齿和骨骼变化。CB 组下颌切牙的舌倾角度明显大于 SLB 组。

相似文献

1
Treatment time, outcome, and anchorage loss comparisons of self-ligating and conventional brackets.自锁托槽和传统托槽的治疗时间、疗效和支抗丢失比较。
Angle Orthod. 2013 Mar;83(2):280-5. doi: 10.2319/041912-326.1. Epub 2012 Aug 17.
2
Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances.使用两种预成直丝弓矫治器排齐整平阶段下颌牙弓变化的比较
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Sep;136(3):340-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.030.
3
A comparative anchorage control study between conventional and self-ligating bracket systems using differential moments.采用差动力矩的传统与自锁托槽系统的比较固位控制研究。
Angle Orthod. 2013 Nov;83(6):937-42. doi: 10.2319/022813-170.1. Epub 2013 Jun 7.
4
Force levels in complex tooth alignment with conventional and self-ligating brackets.传统自锁托槽和自锁托槽在复杂牙齿矫正中的力水平比较
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Apr;143(4):507-14. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.11.020.
5
Archwire diameter effect on tooth alignment with different bracket-archwire combinations.不同托槽-弓丝组合下弓丝直径对牙齿排齐的影响。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Jan;149(1):76-83. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.06.026.
6
Effect of archwire cross-section changes on force levels during complex tooth alignment with conventional and self-ligating brackets.在使用传统托槽和自锁托槽进行复杂牙齿排齐过程中,弓丝横截面变化对力值水平的影响。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015 Apr;147(4 Suppl):S101-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.11.024.
7
Mandibular dental arch changes with active self-ligating brackets combined with different archwires.使用主动式自锁托槽结合不同弓丝时下颌牙弓的变化。
Niger J Clin Pract. 2018 May;21(5):566-572. doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_94_17.
8
Comparison of anchorage loss between conventional and self-ligating brackets during canine retraction - A systematic review and meta-analysis.传统托槽和自锁托槽在尖牙回收时支抗丢失的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int Orthod. 2020 Mar;18(1):41-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2019.11.002. Epub 2019 Dec 19.
9
Comparison of transverse dimensional and incisor changes between wide and narrow orthodontic archwires: a randomized controlled trial.宽弓丝和窄弓丝在横向牙弓和切牙变化方面的比较:一项随机对照试验。
Clin Oral Investig. 2024 May 27;28(6):338. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05724-0.
10
Comparative assessment of alignment efficiency and space closure of active and passive self-ligating vs conventional appliances in adolescents: a single-center randomized controlled trial.青少年主动自锁式与被动自锁式矫治器和传统矫治器的排齐效率和间隙关闭比较:一项单中心随机对照试验。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 May;145(5):569-78. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.12.024.

引用本文的文献

1
Self-Ligating Versus Conventional Brackets: A Narrative Review.自锁托槽与传统托槽:一项叙述性综述
Cureus. 2025 Mar 31;17(3):e81499. doi: 10.7759/cureus.81499. eCollection 2025 Mar.
2
Does anchorage loss differ with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems?0.018 英寸和 0.022 英寸槽弓托槽系统的支抗丧失是否存在差异?
Angle Orthod. 2019 Jul;89(4):605-610. doi: 10.2319/081918-608.1. Epub 2019 Apr 23.
3
A comparison of lower canine retraction and loss of anchorage between conventional and self-ligating brackets: a single-center randomized split-mouth controlled trial.传统自锁托槽与非自锁托槽对下尖牙回收及支抗丧失的比较:一项单中心随机分组对照研究。
Clin Oral Investig. 2017 May;21(4):1047-1053. doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-1855-7. Epub 2016 May 31.
4
Canine retraction and anchorage loss self-ligating versus conventional brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis.犬齿后缩及支抗丧失:自锁托槽与传统托槽的比较:一项系统评价与荟萃分析
BMC Oral Health. 2015 Nov 4;15(1):136. doi: 10.1186/s12903-015-0127-2.
5
Implementation of post treatment critical evaluation improved the quality of orthodontic care in postgraduate orthodontic clinic: A 10 years comparative study.治疗后关键评估的实施提高了研究生正畸门诊的正畸治疗质量:一项10年的比较研究。
Indian J Dent. 2015 Jul-Sep;6(3):125-9. doi: 10.4103/0975-962X.163035.
6
Anchorage condition during canine retraction using transpalatal arch with continuous and segmented arch mechanics.使用横腭杆结合连续弓丝和节段弓丝技术进行犬齿后移时的支抗情况。
Angle Orthod. 2016 May;86(3):380-5. doi: 10.2319/050615-306.1. Epub 2015 Aug 10.
7
An interview with Matheus Melo Pithon.对马泰乌斯·梅洛·皮通的一次采访。
Dental Press J Orthod. 2015 May-Jun;20(3):18-28. doi: 10.1590/2176-9451.20.3.018-028.int.
8
Long-term stability of dentoalveolar, skeletal, and soft tissue changes after non-extraction treatment with a self-ligating system.使用自结扎系统进行非拔牙治疗后牙槽骨、骨骼和软组织变化的长期稳定性。
Korean J Orthod. 2014 May;44(3):119-27. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2014.44.3.119. Epub 2014 May 19.
9
Canine retraction and anchorage loss: self-ligating versus conventional brackets in a randomized split-mouth study.犬牙后缩与支抗丧失:一项随机双颌对照研究中自结扎托槽与传统托槽的比较
Angle Orthod. 2014 Sep;84(5):846-52. doi: 10.2319/100813-743.1. Epub 2014 Mar 4.
10
Root resorption, treatment time and extraction rate during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating and conventional brackets.正畸治疗中自锁托槽和传统托槽的牙根吸收、治疗时间和拔牙率。
Head Face Med. 2014 Jan 23;10:2. doi: 10.1186/1746-160X-10-2.

本文引用的文献

1
Self-ligating vs conventional brackets as perceived by orthodontists.自锁托槽与传统托槽的正畸医生感知差异。
Angle Orthod. 2012 Nov;82(6):1060-6. doi: 10.2319/101311-640.1. Epub 2012 Mar 12.
2
Duration of treatment and occlusal outcome using Damon3 self-ligated and conventional orthodontic bracket systems in extraction patients: a prospective randomized clinical trial.使用 Damon3 自锁式和传统正畸托槽系统治疗拔牙患者的疗程和咬合结果:一项前瞻性随机临床试验。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Feb;139(2):e111-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.07.020.
3
Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets.上颌尖牙的自锁托槽和传统托槽的内收。
Angle Orthod. 2011 Mar;81(2):292-7. doi: 10.2319/062510-348.1.
4
Efficiency of self-ligating vs conventionally ligated brackets during initial alignment.自锁托槽与传统结扎托槽在初始排齐阶段的效率比较。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Aug;138(2):138.e1-7; discussion 138-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.03.020.
5
Randomized clinical trial of orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic appliances.自锁托槽和传统固定矫治器正畸治疗效率的随机临床试验。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Jun;137(6):738-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.023.
6
Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances.使用两种预成直丝弓矫治器排齐整平阶段下颌牙弓变化的比较
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Sep;136(3):340-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.030.
7
Elastic properties and apparent density of human edentulous maxilla and mandible.人类无牙上颌骨和下颌骨的弹性特性及表观密度。
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Oct;38(10):1088-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2009.06.025. Epub 2009 Jul 31.
8
Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial.Damon3自结扎与传统正畸托槽系统的排齐效率:一项随机临床试验。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Oct;134(4):470.e1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.04.018.
9
Torque expression of self-ligating brackets compared with conventional metallic, ceramic, and plastic brackets.自结扎托槽与传统金属、陶瓷和塑料托槽的扭矩表达。
Eur J Orthod. 2008 Jun;30(3):233-8. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjn005.
10
Torque expression of self-ligating brackets.自锁托槽的扭矩表达
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 May;133(5):721-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.051.