Huang Xiao-Hong, Xu Liang, Lin Shan
Department of Stomatology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University. Fuzhou 350005, Fujian Province, China. E-mail:
Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2016 Dec;25(6):734-737.
To compare the time-consuming and bonding effectiveness of full dental arch and segmented dental arch, when double transparent pressure diaphragm technology was used for indirect bracket bonding. METHODS： Forty-five orthodontic cases were selected, and classified into 3 groups according to different bonding methods and arches. There were 15 cases in each group, a total of 270 brackets and 120 buccal tubes were used. Patients in group A and B received double transparent pressure diaphragm technology to bond brackets indirectly. Among them, full dental arch tray was applied in group A, segmented dental arch tray was applied in group B; the brackets was bonded directly in group C. High posterior teeth pad did not affect the mandibular bracket during occlusion. The amount of time to bond brackets in group A and B (started from brackets bonding to the end of light-cure) was recorded as T1, the time of making arches was recorded as T2 (started from pressed film to the end of the arches made) and the average chair-side time of group A, B and C (started from acid etching in the mouth until all brackets are finished bonding and curing). Time-consuming of each stage in group A, B, immediate bracket failure rate and immediate buccal tube failure rate in group A, B, C were compared. SPSS 22.0 software package was used for statistical analysis.
There was no significant difference in T1 and T2 between group A and B (P>0.05). T2 in group A was significantly less than in group B (P<0.05). Immediate buccal tube and braces failure rate in group A was significantly greater than in group B and C.
Using double transparent pressure diaphragm technology to bond bracket indirectly is convenient and simple. The segmented dental arch is more time-consuming compared to full dental arch. However, the immediate bracket failure rate is lower.
比较采用双透明压膜技术进行间接托槽粘结时，全牙弓与分段牙弓的耗时及粘结效果。方法：选取45例正畸病例，根据不同的粘结方法和牙弓分为3组。每组15例，共使用270个托槽和120个颊面管。A组和B组患者采用双透明压膜技术间接粘结托槽。其中，A组应用全牙弓托盘，B组应用分段牙弓托盘；C组直接粘结托槽。高后牙垫在咬合时不影响下颌托槽。记录A组和B组粘结托槽的时间（从托槽粘结开始至光固化结束）为T1，制作牙弓的时间（从压膜开始至牙弓制作完成）为T2，以及A、B、C组的平均椅旁时间（从口腔酸蚀开始至所有托槽粘结并固化完成）。比较A、B组各阶段耗时、A、B、C组的即刻托槽失败率和即刻颊面管失败率。采用SPSS 22.0软件包进行统计分析。
A组和B组的T1和T2差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。A组的T2显著少于B组（P<0.05）。A组的即刻颊面管和托槽失败率显著高于B组和C组。
采用双透明压膜技术间接粘结托槽方便简单。与全牙弓相比，分段牙弓更耗时。然而，即刻托槽失败率较低。
