Krishnan Sindhuja, Pandian Saravana, Rajagopal R
Postgraduation program, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Senior Lecturer, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Dental Press J Orthod. 2017 Mar-Apr;22(2):69-76. doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.22.2.069-076.oar.
: The use of flowable composites as an orthodontic bonding adhesive merits great attention because of their adequate bond strength, ease of clinical handling and reduced number of steps in bonding.
: The aim of this Randomized Controlled Trial was to comparatively evaluate over a 6-month period the bond failure rate of a flowable composite (Heliosit Orthodontic, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan) and a conventional orthodontic bonding adhesive (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek).
: 53 consecutive patients (23 males and 30 females) who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the study. A total of 891 brackets were analyzed, where 444 brackets were bonded using Heliosit Orthodontic and 447 brackets were bonded using Transbond XT. The survival rates of brackets were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier analysis. Bracket survival distributions for bonding adhesives, tooth location and dental arch were compared with the log-rank test.
: The failure rates of the Transbond XT and the Heliosit Orthodontic groups were 8.1% and 6% respectively. No significant differences in the survival rates were observed between them (p= 0.242). There was no statistically significant difference in the bond failure rates when the clinical performance of the maxillary versus the mandibular arches and the anterior versus the posterior segments were compared.
: Both systems had clinically acceptable bond failure rates and are adequate for orthodontic bonding needs.
由于具有足够的粘结强度、易于临床操作且粘结步骤减少,可流动复合树脂作为正畸粘结剂的应用备受关注。
本随机对照试验的目的是在6个月的时间内比较评估一种可流动复合树脂(Heliosit Orthodontic,义获嘉伟瓦登特股份公司,沙恩)和一种传统正畸粘结剂(Transbond XT,3M Unitek)的粘结失败率。
53例连续符合纳入和排除标准的患者(23例男性和30例女性)被纳入研究。共分析了891个托槽,其中444个托槽使用Heliosit Orthodontic粘结,447个托槽使用Transbond XT粘结。采用Kaplan-Meier分析估计托槽的生存率。使用对数秩检验比较粘结剂、牙齿位置和牙弓的托槽生存分布。
Transbond XT组和Heliosit Orthodontic组的失败率分别为8.1%和6%。两组之间的生存率无显著差异(p = 0.242)。比较上颌与下颌牙弓以及前牙段与后牙段的临床性能时,粘结失败率无统计学显著差异。
两种系统的粘结失败率在临床上均可接受,足以满足正畸粘结需求。