摘要
目的:评价两种不同类型粘接剂和临床四手操作在正畸托槽粘结过程中的应用效果。方法:将正畸门诊40例需粘接托槽患者随机均分为四组,A组10例,四手操作粘接托槽184个,使用光固化粘接剂。B组10例,非四手操作粘接托槽180个,使用光固化粘接剂。C组10例,四手操作粘接托槽188个,使用化学固化粘接剂。D组10例,非四手操作粘接托槽192个,使用化学固化粘接剂。分别记录四组患者粘接托槽所需时间和1周以后托槽脱落情况,进行统计分析。结果:粘接单个托槽平均所需时间A组2.65 min,B组3.52 min,C组1.95 min,D组2.18 min,A组与B组、C组与D组、A组与C、B组与D组分别有明显的统计学差异(P<0.05)。1月后复诊四组的托槽脱落分别为5个、7个、4个、8个,托槽脱落率分别为:2.72%、3.89%、2.13%、4.16%,四组间没有明显的统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论:在粘接托槽过程中,使用化学固化粘接剂和通过四手操作均可以明显缩短医生临床操作时间,并对粘接效果没有明显影响,工作效率显著提高。
Objective： To evaluate the effect of two different types of adhesive and four-handed operation in clinic bracket bonding. Method： Forty patients needed bonding brackets were randomly and equally divided into 4 groups （n=10）. A group： 184 brackets were boned with four-handed operation and light curing adhesive. B group： 180 brackets were boned with non four-handed operation and hght curing adhesive. C group： 188 brackets were boned with four-handed operation and chemical curing adhesive. D group： 192 brackets were boned with non four-handed operation and chemical curing adhesive. Result： The average time of bonding one bracket： of A group was 2.65 min; of B group was 3.52 min： of C group was 1.95 min：of D group was 2.18 min. There was statistical difference between A group and B group;C group and D group：A group and C group;B group and D group （P 〈0.05）. When it is time to check after one month, the number of adhesive failure bracket was 5 in A group,7 in B group,4 in C group and 8 in D group. The failure rate was 2.72 % of A group： 3.89 % of B group：2.13 % of C group; 4.16 % of D group. There was no statistical difference between four groups. Conclusion：The chemical curing adhesive and four-handed operation could improve the efficiency in clinic bracket bonding. Both of them had no effect on the bonding results.
出处
《临床口腔医学杂志》
2014年第3期185-187,共3页
Journal of Clinical Stomatology
关键词
粘接剂
四手操作
托槽粘接
Adhesive： Four-handed operation
Bracket bonding
