Child Dental Health, Bristol Dental School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Child Dental Health, Bristol Dental School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019 Jun;155(6):767-778. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.02.010.
The aim of this laboratory and randomized clinical trial was to investigate particulate production at debonding and enamel clean-up following the use of flash-free ceramic brackets and to compare them with non-flash-free metal and ceramic brackets.
In the laboratory study, brackets were bonded to bovine teeth. After 24 hours of immersion in water, the brackets were debonded, the adhesive remnant scores noted, and the enamel cleaned with the use of rotary instruments. Four bracket-adhesive combinations and 2 different enamel pretreatment regimens were tested, including metal and ceramic brackets (conventional, adhesive precoat [APC], and APC flash-free) and conventional acid etch and self-etching primer. Quantitative (mg/m) and qualitative analysis of particulate production was made in each case. In the clinical trial, 18 patients treated with the use of fixed appliances were recruited into this 3-arm parallel-design randomized controlled trial. They were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 groups: experimental flash-free ceramic bracket or non-flash-free ceramic or metal bracket group. Eligibility criteria included patients undergoing nonextraction maxillary and mandibular fixed appliance therapy. At completion of treatment, the brackets were debonded, and the primary outcome measure was particulate concentration (mg/m). Randomization was by means of sealed envelopes. Data were analyzed with the use of quantile plots and linear mixed models. The effect of etch, bracket, and stage of debonding of clean-up on particle composition was analyzed with the use of mixed-effects regression.
In the laboratory study, the APC brackets produced the highest particulate concentration. Although statistically significantly higher than the metal and conventional ceramic brackets, it was not significantly higher than the ceramic flash-free brackets. In the clinical study, there was no statistically significant effect of bracket type on particulate concentration (P = 0.29). This was despite 3 patients with APC flash-free and 1 patient with conventional Clarity (with 1 bracket) having 1 or more ceramic bracket fracture at debonding requiring removal. No adverse events reported.
Particulates in the inhalable, thoracic, and respirable fractions were produced at enamel clean-up with all bracket types. Although APC and APC flash-free brackets produced the highest concentrations in the laboratory study, there was no difference between any of the brackets in the clinical trial.
The trial was not registered.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
本实验室和随机临床试验的目的是研究使用无闪光陶瓷托槽和非闪光金属和陶瓷托槽后脱粘和牙釉质清洁时的颗粒产生情况,并对其进行比较。
在实验室研究中,将托槽粘结到牛牙上。在水中浸泡 24 小时后,脱粘托槽,记录残留粘结剂分数,并使用旋转器械清洁牙釉质。测试了四种托槽-粘结剂组合和两种不同的牙釉质预处理方案,包括金属和陶瓷托槽(传统、预涂粘结剂[APC]和无闪光 APC)以及传统酸蚀和自酸蚀底漆。在每种情况下均进行了定量(mg/m)和定性分析颗粒的产生。在临床试验中,招募了 18 名使用固定矫治器治疗的患者参加这项三臂平行设计的随机对照试验。他们被随机分配到 3 组之一:实验性无闪光陶瓷托槽或非闪光陶瓷或金属托槽组。入选标准包括接受上颌和下颌无拔牙固定矫治器治疗的患者。治疗结束时,脱粘托槽,主要结局测量指标是颗粒浓度(mg/m)。随机分组采用密封信封。数据使用分位数图和线性混合模型进行分析。使用混合效应回归分析酸蚀、托槽和牙釉质清洁阶段对颗粒成分的影响。
在实验室研究中,APC 托槽产生的颗粒浓度最高。尽管统计学上显著高于金属和传统陶瓷托槽,但与无闪光陶瓷托槽相比并无显著差异。在临床试验中,托槽类型对颗粒浓度无统计学显著影响(P=0.29)。尽管有 3 名患者使用无闪光 APC 托槽和 1 名患者使用传统 Clarity(1 个托槽)在脱粘时出现 1 个或多个陶瓷托槽断裂,需要去除,但仍无统计学显著差异。无不良事件报告。
在所有托槽类型的牙釉质清洁过程中,可吸入、胸内和可呼吸部分都产生了颗粒。虽然 APC 和 APC 无闪光托槽在实验室研究中产生了最高浓度,但临床试验中任何托槽之间都没有差异。
该试验未进行注册。
本研究未从公共、商业或非营利部门的任何资助机构获得特定的资助。