...
首页> 外文期刊>Contemporary Clinical Dentistry >Comparative evaluation of efficacy of self-ligating interactive bracket with conventional preadjusted bracket: A clinical study
【24h】

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of self-ligating interactive bracket with conventional preadjusted bracket: A clinical study

机译:自结扎式支架与传统预调整支架的疗效比较评估:一项临床研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Aims and Objectives: This clinical study was conducted to compare the interactive self-ligating twin brackets and the standard double width brackets for their efficiency in Rate of Retraction. Materials and Methods: A total of 20 patients with Angle's class I or class II or class III dento-alveolar malocclusions between the age group of 18-25 years were selected. 10 patients in each group both males and females were randomly selected for the study. Ten patients were bonded using conventional brackets (Group I) the other ten patients were bonded using Interactive self-ligating brackets (Group II). The Rate of retraction was quantified using the scanned models. Pretreatment and post treatment models were taken and scanned to measure the amount of Incisor movement and Anchor loss. Results: (1) Interactive Self-ligating brackets showed significant Rate of retraction when compared with conventional brackets on right and left quadrant. (Group I 0.545 ± .205: Group II 0.827 ± .208 P= .013*) (Group I 0.598 ± .160: Group II 0.804 ± .268 P= .071) (2) Interactive self-ligating brackets when compared with conventional brackets had significant amount of incisor movement on right and left quadrant. (Group I 3.51 ± .548: Group II 4.38 ± .1.06 P= .047*) and (Group I 3.66 ± .899: Group II 4.67 ± 1.02 P= .047*) (3) Conventional brackets showed significant Amount of Anchor loss when compared with that of Interactive self-ligating brackets on right and left quadrant. (Group I .948 ± .392: Group II 0.501 ± .229 P= .013*). In the left side (Group I 0.861 ± .464: Group II 0.498 ± .227 P= .060). Conclusion: The interactive self-ligating brackets show more efficiency in Rate of Retraction, Amount of Incisor movement and Amount of Anchor loss when compared with the conventional brackets.
机译:目的和目的:进行了这项临床研究,以比较交互式自结扎双托槽和标准双宽度托槽在回缩率方面的效率。材料和方法:总共选择20例年龄在18-25岁之间的安格尔氏I级或II级或III级牙槽融合不良的患者。每组随机选择10名男性和女性患者进行研究。十名患者使用常规托槽固定(组I),其他十名患者使用交互式自结扎支架固定(组II)。使用扫描的模型量化收缩率。采取治疗前和治疗后的模型并进行扫描,以测量门牙移动和锚固丢失的量。结果:(1)互动式自结扎支架在右象限和左象限与常规支架相比显示出显着的收缩率。 (I组0.545±.205:II组0.827±.208 P = .013 *)(I组0.598±.160:II组0.804±.268 P = .071)(2)与传统托槽在左右象限中有大量切牙移动。 (I组3.51±.548:II组4.38±.1.06 P = .047 *)和(I组3.66±.899:II组4.67±1.02 P = .047 *)(3)常规括号显示了大量的锚点与左右象限上的交互式自动结扎支架相比损失更大。 (I组.948±.392:II组0.501±.229 P = .013 *)。在左侧(I组0.861±.464:II组0.498±.227 P = .060)。结论:与传统托槽相比,交互式自结扎托槽在回缩速度,门牙移动量和锚固丢失量方面显示出更高的效率。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号