...
首页> 外文期刊>American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics >Plasma arc versus halogen light-curing of adhesive-precoated orthodontic brackets: a 12-month clinical study of bond failures.
【24h】

Plasma arc versus halogen light-curing of adhesive-precoated orthodontic brackets: a 12-month clinical study of bond failures.

机译:等离子弧光与卤素光固化粘合剂涂覆的正畸托槽:粘结失败的12个月临床研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the performance of adhesive-precoated brackets cured with 2 different light-curing units (conventional halogen light and plasma arc light). Thirty patients treated with fixed appliances were included in the investigation. Each patient's mouth was divided by the split-mouth design into 4 quadrants. In 15 randomly selected patients, the maxillary left and mandibular right quadrants were cured with the halogen light, and the remaining quadrants were cured with the plasma arc light. In the other 15 patients, the quadrants were inverted. A total of 600 adhesive precoated stainless steel brackets were examined: 300 were cured with a conventional halogen light for 20 seconds, and the others were cured with the plasma arc light for 5 seconds. The number, cause, and date of bracket failures were recorded for each light-curing unit over 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed with the Fisher exact test, Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, and the log-rank test. No statistically significant differences in bond failure rates were found between the adhesive-precoated brackets cured with the halogen light and those cured with the plasma arc light; neither were any significant differences in performance found with each light-curing unit between the maxillary and mandibular arches. Plasma arc lights can be considered an advantageous alternative to conventional light curing, because they enable the clinician to reduce the curing time of adhesive-precoated orthodontic brackets without significantly affecting their bond failure rate.
机译:这项随机临床试验的目的是评估用2种不同的光固化单元(常规卤素灯和等离子弧光)固化的涂有粘合剂的托架的性能。本研究包括30例用固定器具治疗的患者。每个患者的口腔均按照裂口设计分为4个象限。在15名随机选择的患者中,用卤素灯治愈上颌左和下颌右象限,而等离子弧光治愈其余的象限。在其他15例患者中,象限倒置。总共检查了600个涂有粘合剂的不锈钢支架:用常规的卤素灯固化了300秒20秒钟,其余的用等离子弧光灯固化了5秒钟。记录每个光固化单元在12个月内的支架故障的数量,原因和日期。使用Fisher精确检验,Kaplan-Meier生存估计和对数秩检验进行统计分析。在用卤素灯固化的粘合剂涂层支架和用等离子弧光固化的支架之间,在粘合失败率上没有统计学上的显着差异。上颌和下颌弓之间的每个光固化单元在性能上都没有发现任何显着差异。等离子弧光可以被认为是传统光固化的一种有利替代方案,因为它们使临床医生能够减少涂有粘合剂的正畸托槽的固化时间,而不会显着影响其粘结失败率。

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