• 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

比较传统结扎和自结扎托槽的拔牙间隙关闭时间和牙根吸收程度。

Comparative evaluation of duration of extraction space closure and degree of root resorption with conventional and self-Ligation brackets.

机构信息

Dental Officer, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Government Dental Center, Nagaland, India.

Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Mansarovar Dental College, Bhopal, India.

出版信息

Indian J Dent Res. 2022 Jan-Mar;33(1):52-57. doi: 10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_1127_21.

DOI:10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_1127_21
PMID:35946245
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Determination of difference between conventional and passive self-ligating brackets (SLBs) in respect of extraction space closure, patient perception and root resorption.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eighty patients were divided into four groups of 20 each with age-sex-matched control using a simple randomisation technique and allocation concealment with a closed opaque envelope method. Group 1 consisted of conventional brackets with Connecticut New Archwire (CNA) wire mushroom loop, group 2 consisted of conventional brackets with TAD (AbsoAnchor, Korea) supported retraction, group 3 consisted of passive SLB with CNA archwires (Libral Traders, India) mushroom loop and group 4 consisted of passive SLB brackets with TAD (AbsoAnchor, Korea) supported retraction. The rate of retraction, root resorption and patient satisfaction were assessed. All conventional brackets (Orthox, USA) and passive SLBs (CaptainOrtho, India) had 0.018 Roth prescriptions with a slot size of 0.018 × 0.025.

RESULTS

Retraction was the fastest in group 2 with a mean of 1.266 ± 0.14 mm/4 week and a duration of 23.40 weeks. Similarly, group 4 showed the most sluggish movement with a mean of 1.182 ± 0.80 mm/4 weeks with a total duration of 25 weeks; howeverdifferencesce among groups were not statistically significant (P = 0.470).

CONCLUSION

SLBs have advantage of better patient comfort, less pain and reduced chairside time. Though the present study found increased treatment duration with SLB along with friction mechanics, refuting the previous claims of reduced friction with SLBs, however, the difference was not statistically significant and results have to be extrapolated with caution and experience considering other advantages of SLBs.

摘要

介绍

比较传统自锁托槽(SLB)和被动自锁托槽在拔牙间隙关闭、患者感知和牙根吸收方面的差异。

材料和方法

采用简单随机化技术和封闭不透明信封法进行分组和分配隐藏,将 80 名患者分为 4 组,每组 20 例,年龄、性别匹配。第 1 组由传统托槽和康涅狄格新弓丝(CNA)蘑菇圈组成,第 2 组由传统托槽和 TAD(AbsoAnchor,韩国)支持的牵引组成,第 3 组由被动 SLB 和 CNA 弓丝(Libral Traders,印度)蘑菇圈组成,第 4 组由被动 SLB 托槽和 TAD(AbsoAnchor,韩国)支持的牵引组成。评估牵引速度、牙根吸收和患者满意度。所有传统托槽(Orthox,美国)和被动 SLB(CaptainOrtho,印度)均采用 0.018 Roth 处方,槽宽为 0.018×0.025。

结果

第 2 组的牵引速度最快,平均为 1.266±0.14mm/4 周,持续时间为 23.40 周。同样,第 4 组的移动速度最慢,平均为 1.182±0.80mm/4 周,总持续时间为 25 周;然而,组间差异无统计学意义(P=0.470)。

结论

SLB 具有更好的患者舒适度、更少的疼痛和减少椅旁时间的优势。尽管本研究发现 SLB 增加了治疗时间,且存在摩擦力学,但这与 SLB 摩擦力降低的先前说法相矛盾,然而,差异无统计学意义,结果必须谨慎外推,并结合 SLB 的其他优势进行经验考虑。

相似文献

1
Comparative evaluation of duration of extraction space closure and degree of root resorption with conventional and self-Ligation brackets.比较传统结扎和自结扎托槽的拔牙间隙关闭时间和牙根吸收程度。
Indian J Dent Res. 2022 Jan-Mar;33(1):52-57. doi: 10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_1127_21.
2
Effects of third-order torque on frictional force of self-ligating brackets.三阶扭矩对自锁托槽摩擦力的影响。
Angle Orthod. 2014 Nov;84(6):1054-61. doi: 10.2319/111913-845.1. Epub 2014 Apr 16.
3
An in vitro Evaluation of Friction Characteristics of Conventional Stainless Steel and Self-ligating Stainless Steel Brackets with different Dimensions of Archwires in Various Bracket-archwire Combination.不同尺寸弓丝与传统不锈钢及自锁不锈钢托槽在多种托槽-弓丝组合方式下摩擦特性的体外评估
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017 Aug 1;18(8):660-664. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2102.
4
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.
5
Comparative evaluation of frictional forces in active and passive self-ligating brackets with various archwire alloys.不同弓丝合金在主动和被动自锁托槽中摩擦力的比较评估
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Nov;136(5):675-82. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.034.
6
Is there any difference between conventional, passive and active self-ligating brackets? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.传统、被动和主动自锁托槽之间有区别吗?系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Int Orthod. 2021 Dec;19(4):523-538. doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2021.09.005. Epub 2021 Oct 8.
7
[Are self-ligating brackets more efficient than conventional brackets ? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled and split-mouth trials].[自锁托槽比传统托槽更有效吗?一项对随机对照试验和自身对照试验的荟萃分析]
Orthod Fr. 2020 Dec 1;91(4):303-321. doi: 10.1684/orthodfr.2020.29.
8
Force loss in archwire-guided tooth movement of conventional and self-ligating brackets.传统托槽和自锁托槽在弓丝引导牙齿移动过程中的力值损耗
Eur J Orthod. 2014 Feb;36(1):31-8. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjs110. Epub 2013 Feb 4.
9
Resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets versus conventional stainless steel twin brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and wet (saliva) states.自结扎托槽与传统不锈钢双翼托槽在干燥和湿润(唾液)状态下带有二阶角度时的抗滑动性。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Oct;120(4):361-70. doi: 10.1067/mod.2001.116090.
10
The Effect of Using Self-ligating Brackets on Maxillary Canine Retraction: A Split-mouth Design Randomized Controlled Trial.使用自锁托槽对上颌尖牙后移的影响:一项双盲设计随机对照试验。
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016 Jun 1;17(6):496-503. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1879.