首页> 外文期刊>American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics >Which orthodontic appliance is best for oral hygiene? A randomized clinical trial
【24h】

Which orthodontic appliance is best for oral hygiene? A randomized clinical trial

机译:口腔卫生最适合哪种正畸器具? 随机临床试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Introduction: Clear aligners and to a lesser extent self-ligated brackets are considered to facilitate better oral hygiene than traditional fixed orthodontic appliances. This 3-arm parallel-group prospective randomized clinical trial compared the long-term and short-term effects of clear aligners, self-ligated brackets, and conventional (elastomeric-ligated) brackets on patients' oral hygiene during active orthodontic treatment. Methods: Seventy-one participants (41 boys, 30 girls; mean age, 15.6 years) undergoing orthodontic treatment were randomly allocated through a computer-generated randomization schedule to one of the groups based on the choice of intervention: Clear Aligners (CLA) (Align Technology, San Jose, Calif) (n = 27), preadjusted edgewise fixed appliance with self-ligated brackets (SLB) (Carriere, Carlsbad, Calif (n = 22), or preadjusted edgewise fixed appliance with elastomeric ligated brackets (ELB) (Ortho Organizers Inc., Carlsbad, CA) (n 5 22). For each participant, the primary outcome, plaque index (PI), and secondary outcomes, gingival Index (GI) and periodontal bleeding index (PBI), were measured at baseline (T0), after 9 months of treatment (T1), and after 18 months of treatment (T2). Blinding of the clinicians and the patients to the intervention was impossible. It was only done for outcome assessment and for the statistician. Ten participants did not receive the allocated intervention for various reasons. Results: The means and standard deviations of PI at T0 (CLA, 0.5 +/- 0.51; SLB, 0.65 +/- 0.49; ELB, 0.70 +/- 0.73), T1 (CLA, 0.83 +/- 0.48; SLB, 1.38 +/- 0.72; ELB, 1.32 +/- 0.67), and T2 (CLA, 0.92 +/- 0.58; SLB, 1.07 +/- 0.59; ELB, 1.32 +/- 0.67) were similar. The odds ratio (OR) for plaque index (0 or = 1) comparing SLB or CLA to ELB was not significant. OR for SLB vs ELB = 1.54 at T0 (95% CI, 0.39-6.27), 0.88 at T1 (95% CI, 0.03-24.69), and 0.83 at T2 (95% CI, 0.02-27.70); OR for CLA vs ELB = 1.07 at T0 (95% CI, 0.30-3.88), 0.24 at T1 (95% CI, 0.01-1.98), and 0.17 at T2 (95% CI, 0.01-1.71). However, the odds ratios comparing CLA with ELB for GI (OR = 0.14; P = 0.015) and PBI (OR = 0.10; P = 0.012) were statistically significant at T1.Conclusions: In this prospective randomized clinical trial, we found no evidence of differences in oral hygiene levels among clear aligners, self-ligated brackets, and conventional elastomeric ligated brackets after 18 months of active orthodontic treatment.
机译:简介:清晰的对准器和较小程度的自连接括号被认为是促进更好的口服卫生,而不是传统的固定正畸矫正器。该3臂平行组前瞻性随机临床试验比较了在活性正畸治疗期间患者口腔卫生术后透明对准器,自连接括号和常规(弹性形式连接)括号的长期和短期影响。方法:七十一名参与者(41名男孩,30名女孩;平均年龄,15.6岁)通过计算机生成的随机化计划随机分配给基于干预的选择:清除对准器(CLA)(对齐技术,圣何塞,加利福尼夫)(n = 27),具有自连接括号(SLB)(Carriere,Carlsbad,Calif(n = 22),或具有弹性连接支架(ELB)的预调节边缘设备(Ortho Organioners Inc.,Carlsbad,CA)(N 5 22)。对于每个参与者,初级结果,斑块指数(PI)和二次结果,牙龈指数(GI)和牙周出血指数(PBI)进行了测量基线(T0),治疗9个月后(T1),治疗18个月后(T2)。临床医生和患者对干预的致盲是不可能的。它仅供结果评估和统计学家完成。十参与者没有收到分配的干预出于各种原因。结果:PI在T0(CLA,0.5 +/- 0.51; SLB,0.65 +/- 0.49; ELB,0.70 +/- 0.73),T1(CLA,0.83 +/- 0.48; SLB,1.38 +/- 0.72; ELB,1.32 +/- 0.67)和T2(CLA,0.92 +/- 0.58; SLB,1.07 +/- 0.59; ELB,1.32 +/- 0.67)是相似的。斑块指数(0或& = 1)比较SLB或CLA至ELB的斑块率(或)的差距(或)并不显着。或在T0(95%CI,0.39-6.27)的T1(95%CI,0.03-24.69)的T1(95%CI,0.03-24.69),0.83时,在T2(95%CI,0.02-27.70),0.88);或者对于T0(95%CI,0.30-3.88)的T1(95%CI,0.01-1.98),0.17时,0.24,T2的0.24(95%CI,0.01-1.71)。然而,将CLA与ELB进行GI(或= 0.14; P = 0.015)和PBI(或= 0.10; p = 0.012)的差距比在T1.Conclusions:在该前瞻性随机临床试验中,我们没有发现证据18个月的活性正畸治疗后,透明对准器,自连接括号,常规弹性形状连接括号中口腔卫生水平的差异。

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