• 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

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。

A comparative anchorage control study between conventional and self-ligating bracket systems using differential moments.

机构信息

a  Full Professor, Department of Orthodontics, University of North Parana, Londrina, PR, Brazil.

出版信息

Angle Orthod. 2013 Nov;83(6):937-42. doi: 10.2319/022813-170.1. Epub 2013 Jun 7.

DOI:10.2319/022813-170.1
PMID:23745980
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8722823/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficiency in anchorage preservation of conventional and self-ligating brackets after the extraction of first maxillary premolars using differential moment mechanics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-eight patients requiring extraction of maxillary first premolars and maximum anchorage during space closure were evaluated based on bracket type. Group 1, comprising 23 patients, was bonded with preadjusted conventional brackets (CBs) with a slot of 0.022-inch × 0.030-inch. Group 2 comprised 15 patients who were bonded with 0.022 inch preadjusted self-ligating brackets (SLBs). Patients in both groups received a nickel titanium (NiTi) intrusion arch and a 150 g NiTi closing coil spring for separate canine retraction, followed by a continuous mushroom loop archwire to retract the incisors. Lateral cephalograms were available at the start of treatment (T1) and at the completion of space closure (T2). Statistical comparisons were performed with paired and unpaired Student's t-tests.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between the groups in maxillary molars anchorage loss (3.87 ± 1.35 mm and 3.65 ± 1.73 mm for the CB and SLB groups, respectively). Only the mean vertical movement of the tip of the incisor was significantly different between the groups (CB  =  -0.92 ± 1.46 mm; SLB  =  0.56 ± 1.65 mm).

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in the amount of anchorage loss of the maxillary first molars between SLB and CB systems during space closure using differential moments.

摘要

目的

通过差动力矩比较上颌第一磨牙拔牙后传统和自锁托槽的保持效率。

材料和方法

根据托槽类型,评估了 38 例需要上颌第一前磨牙拔牙和最大支抗关闭的患者。第 1 组包括 23 例患者,使用 0.022 英寸×0.030 英寸槽的预调整传统托槽(CB)粘结。第 2 组包括 15 例患者,使用 0.022 英寸预调整自锁托槽(SLB)粘结。两组患者均接受镍钛(NiTi)压入弓和 150 g NiTi 闭合圈簧,用于单独的尖牙后移,然后用连续蘑菇型圈丝弓将切牙收回。治疗开始时(T1)和空间关闭完成时(T2)均有侧位头颅侧位片。采用配对和非配对学生 t 检验进行统计学比较。

结果

在磨牙支抗丧失方面,两组之间无显著差异(CB 组为 3.87±1.35mm,SLB 组为 3.65±1.73mm)。仅切牙尖的垂直移动平均值在两组之间存在显著差异(CB 组为-0.92±1.46mm;SLB 组为 0.56±1.65mm)。

结论

在使用差动力矩进行间隙关闭时,SLB 和 CB 系统对上颌第一磨牙的支抗丧失量无显著差异。

相似文献

1
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.
2
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.
3
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.
4
A prospective comparative study between differential moments and miniscrews in anchorage control.差异力矩与微螺钉支抗控制的前瞻性对照研究。
Eur J Orthod. 2013 Oct;35(5):568-76. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjs046. Epub 2012 Aug 16.
5
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.
6
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.
7
Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalometric study.微型种植体支抗用于上颌前牙整体后移:一项临床头影测量研究
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Dec;134(6):803-10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.025.
8
Mini-screw implant or transpalatal arch-mediated anchorage reinforcement during canine retraction: a randomized clinical trial.犬牙后移过程中微型螺钉种植体或跨腭弓介导的支抗增强:一项随机临床试验
J Orthod. 2012 Jun;39(2):102-10. doi: 10.1179/14653121226878.
9
A comparative assessment of the forces and moments generated at the maxillary incisors between conventional and self-ligating brackets using a reverse curve of Spee NiTi archwire.使用反Spee曲线镍钛弓丝对传统托槽和自锁托槽在上颌切牙处产生的力和力矩进行比较评估。
Aust Orthod J. 2010 Nov;26(2):127-33.
10
The clinical and laboratory effects of bracket type during canine distalization with sliding mechanics.滑动机制远移尖牙时托槽类型的临床和实验室影响。
Angle Orthod. 2012 Mar;82(2):326-32. doi: 10.2319/032611-215.1. Epub 2011 Aug 29.

引用本文的文献

1
Tip efficiency of a customized lingual appliance: Performance of wires with two different ligatures.定制舌侧矫治器的托槽效率:两种不同结扎方式弓丝的性能
Eur J Oral Sci. 2025 Feb;133(1):e13031. doi: 10.1111/eos.13031. Epub 2024 Dec 16.
2
Canine retraction and anchorage loss using self-ligating and conventional brackets with sliding mechanics: A split-mouth clinical study.使用自结扎和传统托槽结合滑动机制的犬牙后缩及支抗丧失:一项双侧对照临床研究。
J Orthod Sci. 2023 Nov 2;12:70. doi: 10.4103/jos.jos_29_23. eCollection 2023.
3
Von Mises stresses on Mushroom-loop archwires for incisor retraction: a numerical study.用于切牙后移的蘑菇形曲弓丝上的冯·米塞斯应力:一项数值研究。
Dental Press J Orthod. 2020 Jul-Aug;25(4):44-50. doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.25.4.044-050.oar.
4
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.
5
Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis.正畸微型种植体在上颌整体远中移动中的疗效:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int J Implant Dent. 2018 Oct 25;4(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s40729-018-0144-4.
6
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.
7
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.
8
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.
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.

本文引用的文献

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
A prospective comparative study between differential moments and miniscrews in anchorage control.差异力矩与微螺钉支抗控制的前瞻性对照研究。
Eur J Orthod. 2013 Oct;35(5):568-76. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjs046. Epub 2012 Aug 16.
3
The clinical and laboratory effects of bracket type during canine distalization with sliding mechanics.滑动机制远移尖牙时托槽类型的临床和实验室影响。
Angle Orthod. 2012 Mar;82(2):326-32. doi: 10.2319/032611-215.1. Epub 2011 Aug 29.
4
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.
5
Randomized clinical trial comparing control of maxillary anchorage with 2 retraction techniques.随机临床试验比较两种后牵引技术对上颌支抗控制的效果。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Nov;138(5):544.e1-9; discussion 544-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.12.027.
6
Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs conventional edgewise brackets.带自锁托槽与传统方丝弓托槽的犬牙回收率比较。
Angle Orthod. 2010 Jul;80(4):438-45. doi: 10.2319/060809-322.1.
7
Comparison of the zygoma anchorage system with cervical headgear in buccal segment distalization.颧骨锚固系统与口外弓在颊侧段远中移动中的比较。
Eur J Orthod. 2009 Aug;31(4):417-24. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjp016. Epub 2009 Jun 9.
8
Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalometric study.微型种植体支抗用于上颌前牙整体后移:一项临床头影测量研究
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Dec;134(6):803-10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.025.
9
Palatal implants are a good alternative to headgear: a randomized trial.腭部种植体是头帽的良好替代物:一项随机试验。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Jan;133(1):51-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.04.032.
10
En masse retraction and two-step retraction of maxillary anterior teeth in adult Class I women. A comparison of anchorage loss.成年I类女性上颌前牙的整体后移和两步法后移。支抗丧失的比较。
Angle Orthod. 2007 Nov;77(6):973-8. doi: 10.2319/111706-464.1.