首页> 外文期刊>Orthodontic Journal of Nepal >Periodontal Parameters Alterations with Use of Conventional Bracket and Self-ligating Brackets
【24h】

Periodontal Parameters Alterations with Use of Conventional Bracket and Self-ligating Brackets

机译:使用常规支架和自结扎支架改变牙周参数

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Introduction: Different bracket systems are available in the market claiming to have some advantage over the other. Conventional brackets and the self-ligating brackets are the most common. Though both the systems work basically similarly, the difference between the two system is principally in the ligating technique. The advantage of conventional brackets claimed are faster tooth movements and improved oral health of the patient. Materials & Method: A total number of 20 patients were shorted from the waiting list meeting the selection criteria. With the help of random number generator, two groups with 10 subjects each were created for conventional brackets (0.022 Slot MBT brackets) and self-ligating brackets (0.022 Slot DAMON prescription) respectively. The patients were blinded regarding the selection of the brackets. The brackets were bonded according to the random number allocation. After the bonding, the periodontal parameters i.e. gingival index (GI), plaque Index (PI) were measured again at an interval of 60 (T1) and 120 days (T2). Periodontal indices were calculated by summing the mean score of each examined tooth and dividing by the number of the evaluated teeth. Data collection was done with the help of a periodontal probe. All the records were taken by the same periodontist to avoid inter-examiner variability. To reassure that there is no any intra-examiner variation for periodontal status, the same periodontist re-measured the periodontal parameters again of 10 individuals selected randomly after 7 days from the initial measurements. To examine the intra-examination variability, Dahlberg’s formula was used between the two readings taken at a span of 7 days of the same subjects. The mean value of Plaque index and Gingival index was checked for normal distribution applying Kolmogorov- Smirnov test. One-way ANOVA test was applied for comparison between and within groups for plaque index and Gingival index during three different period in Conventional brackets and Self-ligating brackets. Post hoc Bonferroni test was applied for multiple comparison. Independent t-test was applied for comparison between conventional brackets and self-ligating brackets to compare the plaque index and gingival index. All data were test were analyzed at P0.05. Result: There was no any significant difference between T0 and T1 and between T1 and T2 in both the conventional brackets and self-ligating brackets. However, there was statistical difference between the time period from T0 to T2. There was also no any significant difference between conventional bracket and self-ligating brackets in terms of plaque index and gingival index. Conclusion: There are no advantages of self-ligating brackets over conventional brackets in terms of periodontal status.
机译:简介:市场上有不同的支架系统,它们声称比其他支架系统更具优势。常规括号和自锁括号是最常见的。尽管两个系统的工作原理基本相似,但两个系统之间的区别主要在于结扎技术。要求保护的传统托槽的优点是更快的牙齿移动和改善的患者口腔健康。材料与方法:从等待名单中筛选出符合选择标准的20名患者。借助随机数生成器,分别为常规支架(0.022插槽MBT支架)和自结扎支架(0.022插槽DAMON处方)创建了两组,每组10个主题。患者对括号的选择视而不见。括号根据随机数分配进行绑定。粘结后,以60(T1)和120天(T2)的间隔再次测量牙周参数,即牙龈指数(GI),牙斑指数(PI)。牙周指数的计算方法是将每个检查过的牙齿的平均得分相加,然后除以评估牙齿的数量。借助牙周探针进行数据收集。所有记录均由同一位牙周医师拍摄,以避免考官间的差异。为了确保检查者的牙周状况没有任何变化,同一牙周医师从初次测量7天后再次重新测量了10个随机选择的个体的牙周参数。为了检查考试中的变异性,在同一受试者7天的时间里两次读数之间使用了Dahlberg公式。使用Kolmogorov-Smirnov检验检查斑块指数和牙龈指数的平均值是否为正态分布。在传统支架和自结扎支架的三个不同时期中,采用单向方差分析对两组之间和之间的菌斑指数和牙龈指数进行比较。事后Bonferroni检验用于多重比较。采用独立的t检验比较常规托槽和自结扎托槽,以比较斑块指数和牙龈指数。测试所有数据均在P <0.05进行分析。结果:在传统托槽和自结扎托槽中,T0和T1之间以及T1和T2之间没有任何显着差异。但是,从T0到T2的时间段之间存在统计差异。就斑块指数和牙龈指数而言,常规托槽和自结扎托槽之间也没有任何显着差异。结论:就牙周状况而言,自结扎支架没有传统支架的优势。

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