Ramasundaram Srinidhi, Srinivasan Dilip, Ravi K, Devasahayam Davis
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, SRM Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2024 Nov 21;21:59. doi: 10.4103/drj.drj_196_24. eCollection 2024.
The aim of this study was to compare the mechanical properties of the polymer brackets with metal and ceramic brackets and verify if the polymer brackets could be used clinically.
A thorough search was conducted in four electronic databases, including Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, Ovid, and Lilacs, with article selection based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis standards. A computerized search of the database was done from January 1990 to June 2024. Two independent reviewers were involved in study selection, data extraction, and synthesis. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. The risk of bias was assessed by the quality assessment tool for studies (QUIN tool). The outcomes measured included permanent deformation, hardness, and torquing capacity.
Ten studies were selected after excluding duplicates, screening, and complete text reading to identify the articles that met the eligibility criteria. All ten studies showed medium risk based on the quality assessment tool for studies (QUIN Tool).
The following findings were obtained: Polymer brackets have lower mechanical properties in terms of torque loss, fracture resistance, hardness, and torsional creep compared to metal brackets. Among the polymers listed in the studies, it was found that polyamide exhibited low hardness and polyoxymethylene exhibited the highest torque loss. Torque deformation was highest with a ceramic-reinforced polymer bracket, followed by pure polymer. Torque deformation was minimal with metal slot- and ceramic-reinforced polymers, followed by metal slot-reinforced polymers.
本研究的目的是比较聚合物托槽与金属和陶瓷托槽的力学性能,并验证聚合物托槽是否可用于临床。
在四个电子数据库(包括Scopus、PubMed、Cochrane、Ovid和Lilacs)中进行了全面检索,根据系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目标准选择文章。对数据库进行了从1990年1月至2024年6月的计算机化检索。两名独立的评审员参与了研究选择、数据提取和综合分析。通过与第三位评审员讨论解决分歧。采用研究质量评估工具(QUIN工具)评估偏倚风险。测量的结果包括永久变形、硬度和扭矩能力。
在排除重复项、筛选和全文阅读后,选择了10项研究以确定符合纳入标准的文章。根据研究质量评估工具(QUIN工具),所有10项研究均显示为中度风险。
得出以下结果:与金属托槽相比,聚合物托槽在扭矩损失、抗断裂性、硬度和扭转蠕变方面的力学性能较低。在研究中列出的聚合物中,发现聚酰胺硬度低,聚甲醛扭矩损失最高。陶瓷增强聚合物托槽的扭矩变形最高,其次是纯聚合物。金属槽沟和陶瓷增强聚合物的扭矩变形最小,其次是金属槽沟增强聚合物。