口腔医学研究

口腔医学研究 ›› 2018, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (7): 784-787.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2018.07.024

• 口腔正畸学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

应用4种光固化纳米树脂粘接无托槽隐形矫治器附件的临床比较研究

韩磊, 赵丹, 季骏*   

  1. 南京大学医学院附属口腔医院正畸科 江苏 南京 210008
  • 收稿日期:2018-01-10 出版日期:2018-07-28 发布日期:2018-07-20
  • 通讯作者: 季骏,E-mail:drjijun@126.com
  • 作者简介:韩磊(1983~ ),男,山西人,主治医师,硕士,研究方向为正畸学。
  • 基金资助:
    南京市医学科技发展项目(编号:YKK16160,YKK17140)

Comparative Study of Four Bonding Materials in Bonding Attachment of Removable Thermoplastic Appliances

HAN Lei, ZHAO Dan, JI Jun*   

  1. Department of Orthodontics, Stomatology Hospital affiliated to Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210008, China.
  • Received:2018-01-10 Online:2018-07-28 Published:2018-07-20

PDF (PC)

268

摘要： 目的:比较Filtek Z350XT纳米充填树脂和流动树脂,Tetric-N纳米瓷化充填树脂和流动树脂4种材料在粘接无托槽隐形矫治器附件时的操作时间和临床稳定性,为临床选择合适附件粘接材料提供依据。方法:将采用无托槽隐形矫治的60例错牙合畸形患者随机分为4组,每组15人。A组采用3M Adper SingleBond2粘接剂和Filtek Z350XT纳米充填树脂粘接附件,B组采用3M Adper SingleBond2粘接剂和Filtek Z350XT纳米流动树脂,C组采用Tetric N-bond粘接剂和Tetric N-cerum纳米瓷化充填树脂,D组采用Tetric N-bond粘接剂和Tetric N-flow纳米瓷化流动树脂。记录粘接每组附件所需的操作时间,评价粘接后、粘接后1个月、粘接后6个月、粘接后9个月和12个月后4组附件的脱落情况。结果: 应用流动树脂粘结附件的操作时间较充填树脂短(P<0.01);使用同种树脂粘接优化附件和传统附件在脱落率方面无明显差异;4种材料的脱落率在粘接时、粘接后1个月、粘接后6个月时均无统计学差异,但在粘接后9个月和粘接后12个月,流动树脂相比充填树脂脱落率较高(P<0.01)。结论: 流动树脂临床操作时间短,4种粘接材料在治疗初期的稳定性均达到满意的效果,但充填树脂在治疗后期的稳定性更好。

关键词: 无托槽隐形矫治, 附件, 复合树脂

Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the operation time and clinical bonding failure of four types of bonding materials (Filtek Z350 XT nano filling composite resin, Filtek Z350 XT nano flowable composite resin, Tetric N-flow composite resin, Tetric N-cerum filling composite resin) in bonding attachment of removable thermoplastic appliance. Methods: Sixty malocclusion patients using removable thermoplastic appliances were randomly divided into four groups. 3M Z350 nano filling composite resin and Z350 nano flowable composite resin were used in group A and B, respectively. Tetric N-flow composite resin and Tetric N-cerum filling composite resin were bonded in group C and D, respectively. The operation time of each group was recorded. Failure rates of adhesion were evaluated at the end of adhesion, and 1 month, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months after adhesion. Results: The operation time of flow composite resin group was shorter than that of filling composite resin group (P<0.01). The adhesion failure rates were not significant different among four groups in the first 6 months. Significant difference was found between flow composite resin group and filling composite resin group after 9 and 12 months (P<0.01). However, no difference was found between optimized attachment and traditional attachment. Conclusion: The attachment stability of four types of materials could achieve satisfactory effect in the first 6 months. After 9 months, filling composite resin was more stable than nano flowable composite resin. However, the operation time of nano flowable composite resin was more efficient.

Key words: Removable thermo plastic appliances, Attachment, Composite resin