摘要
目的评价树脂改良型玻璃离子粘固剂粘接正畸托槽的临床使用效果.方法随机选择30名患者,采用自身对照的方法,进行为期18个月的临床研究.231个托槽用树脂改良型玻璃离子粘固剂(resin modified glass ionomer cement,RMGIC)粘接,234个托槽用复合树脂粘接剂(composite resin,CR)粘接.观察脱落托槽所在的牙位、时间和脱落后粘接剂在牙面上的残留量.计算托槽脱落率和粘接材料残留指数.结果树脂改良型玻璃离子粘固剂粘接的托槽脱落率为23.4%;复合树脂粘接剂粘接的托槽脱落率为9.4%,两者差异有极显著的统计学意义(P＜0.001).不论使用玻璃离子粘固剂还是复合树脂粘接剂粘接托槽,第二前磨牙都是最容易出现托槽脱落的牙位.两种材料粘接的托槽脱落后,牙釉质上的粘接材料残留指数差异没有显著性的统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论与复合树脂粘接剂相比,树脂改良型玻璃离子粘固剂的粘接强度尚不能满足正畸治疗的需要.
Objective To evaluate the resin modified glass ionomer cement （RMGIC） for orthodontic bracket bonding. Methods Thirty subjects were selected randomly for this 18 month clinical study by the split mouth method. Two hundred and thirty-one orthodontic brackets were bonded with RMGIC. Tow hundred and thirty-four brackets were bonded with composite resin （CR）. The location and the time point of bond failure, and the amount of adhesive remnant on the tooth surface were recorded. The bond failure rate and the adhesive remnant index were calculated. Results The bond failure rate of RMGIC was 23.4% and the failure rate of CR was 9.4%. There was a significant statistical difference between the two bond failure rates （P〈0. 001）. The second premolar was the common location where had the greatest bond failure rate, not only in the group of RMGIC, but also in the CR group. There was no significant statistical difference between the adhesive remnant indexes of the two adhesive materials （P〉 0. 05）. Conclusions The bond strength of RMGIC cannot satisfy the qualification of orthodontic treatment.
出处
《口腔正畸学》
2005年第3期97-100,共4页
Chinese Journal of Orthodontics
