釉面和托槽联合处理后再粘结强度的研究

发布时间：2018-07-01 20:33

本文选题：抗剪切强度 + 再粘结　；参考：《遵义医学院》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的：本研究采用三种不同方法处理托槽脱落后的釉面，并重粘新托槽或热处理托槽，观察临床托槽的再次脱落率和通过离体牙实验检测其抗剪切强度，将临床观察结果与实验测量结果相结合，探讨托槽脱落后牙面和托槽的处理方法。方法：离体牙实验研究：收集70颗因正畸矫治需要拔出的前磨牙，取70颗方丝弓托槽粘结在前磨牙颊侧，完成后取10颗前磨牙作为对照组（A组），直接测量其抗剪切强度。用去托槽钳将剩余60颗前磨牙上的托槽去除，将牙齿按每组10颗随机分为6组，并作以下处理：B1组使用碳钨磨头打磨残留粘结剂，重粘新托槽；B2组使用碳钨磨头打磨残留粘结剂，重粘热处理托槽；C1组使用碳钨磨头打磨残留粘结剂后抛光釉面，重粘新托槽；C2组使用碳钨磨头打磨残留粘结剂后抛光釉面，重粘热处理托槽；D1组使用矽粒子打磨残留粘结剂并抛光釉面，重粘新托槽；D2组使用矽粒子打磨残留粘结剂并抛光釉面，重粘热处理托槽，测量各组的抗剪切强度。临床试验研究：选择2012-2013年就诊于遵医五院口腔科的正畸病人作为研究对象，其中8例病人的52颗需要首次粘结托槽的前磨牙作为对照组（E组），101例病人的145颗有托槽脱落的前磨牙作为试验组，将其随机分为6组，并作以下处理：F1组，使用碳钨磨头打磨残留粘结剂，重粘新托槽；F2组，使用碳钨磨头打磨残留粘结剂，重粘热处理托槽；G1组，使用碳钨磨头打磨残留粘结剂后抛光釉面，重粘新托槽；G2组，使用碳钨磨头打磨残留粘结剂后抛光釉面，重粘热处理托槽；H1组，使用矽粒子打磨残留粘结剂并抛光釉面，重粘新托槽；H2组，使用矽粒子打磨残留粘结剂并抛光釉面，重粘热处理托槽。经三个月观察，记录各组托槽脱落的个数，并计算各组的托槽脱落率。结果：离体牙实验研究：各组离体牙的抗剪切强度，A组为15.73±2.74MPa；B1组为12.67±3.99MPa； B2组为10.92±3.49MPa； C1组为11.90±4.75MPa； C2组为9.0±1.45MPa；D1组为9.0±3.75MPa；D2组为7.92±2.93MPa。A组与C1组、D1组、B2组、C2组、D2组之间的差别具有统计学意义（P㩳0.05），B1组与D1组、B2组与D2组之间的差别具有统计学意义（P㩳0.05），B1组与C1组、C1组与D1组、B2组与C2组、C2组与D2组间差别无统计学意义(P㧐0.05)。B1组与B2组、C1组与C2组、D1组与D2组之间的差别无统计学意义(P㧐0.05)。临床试验研究：各组托槽脱落率，E组为10/52(19.23㳠)；F1组为7/29（24.14㳠）；F2组为7/28(25.00㳠)；G1组为5/22(22.73㳠)；G2组为6/25(24.00㳠)；H1组为6/23(26.09㳠)；H2组为5/18(27.78㳠)。各组之间的差别无统计学意义(P㧐0.05)。结论：1.首次粘结强度大于二次粘结强度，六种方法处理釉面和托槽后其粘结强度均满足临床要求。2.热处理托槽可替代新托槽进行使用。
[Abstract]:Objective: in this study, three different methods were used to treat the enamel after the brackets were removed, and the new or heat treated brackets were rebonded to observe the rate of receding of the clinical brackets and the shear strength of the brackets in vitro. The clinical observation results and experimental results were combined to discuss the treatment of the tooth surface and bracket after the brackets fell off. Methods: 70 premolars which needed to be pulled out by orthodontic treatment were collected and 70 square wire arch brackets were taken to bind to the buccal side of premolars. After completion, 10 premolars were taken as control group (group A), and their shear strength was measured directly. The remaining 60 premolars were removed by the bracket removal forceps, and the teeth were randomly divided into 6 groups according to 10 teeth in each group. The following treatment was done: group B _ 1: B _ 1 was treated with carbon-tungsten grinding head to grind residual binder, and the new bracket was re-glued; Group B2 used residual binder for grinding carbon tungsten grinding head, group C1 used carbon tungsten grinding head for residual binder to polish glaze, and group C2 used carbon tungsten grinder to polish glaze after grinding residual binder. Silicon particles were used to grind residual binder and polished glaze in group D _ 1, while silicon particles were used to polish glaze in group D _ 2. Shear strength of each group was measured. Clinical trial study: selected orthodontic patients who were admitted to the Department of Stomatology in the Fifth Hospital of Compliance in 2012-2013 as subjects. Among them, 52 premolars of 8 patients were used as control group (group E) and 145 premolars with brackets falling off as experimental group. They were randomly divided into 6 groups and treated as follows: F1 group. The residual binder was used in the grinding of carbon-tungsten grinder, the new bracket in F2 group, the residual binder in the grinding of carbon-tungsten grinding head, the group G _ 1 in heat treatment bracket, the glaze surface after grinding residual binder with carbon tungsten grinding head, and the group G _ 2 in new bracket with heavy adhesion. After grinding residual binder with carbon-tungsten grinder, the glaze was polished, and the H1 group was treated with heat treatment bracket H1. The residual binder was polished with silicon particles and the glaze was polished. The new bracket H _ 2 was rebonded, and the residual binder was polished with silicon particles, and the glaze was polished with silicon particles. Heavy stick heat treatment bracket. After three months observation, the number of brackets in each group was recorded and the rate of bracket shedding was calculated. Results: the anti-shear strength of isolated teeth in each group was 15.73 卤2.74 MPA (12.67 卤3.99 MPA), B2 (10.92 卤3.49), C1 (11.90 卤4.75 MPA), C2 (9.0 卤1.45 MPA / D1) and C _ 2 (9.0 卤3.75 MPA / L), respectively, compared with those in group A (12.67 卤3.99MPa), group B2 (10.92 卤3.49MPa), group C1 (9.0 卤1.45MPaD), group C (9.0 卤3.75MPa). There was significant difference between D2 group (7.92 卤2.93MPa.A) and C1 group (P 0.05). There was statistical difference between group B _ 1 and group D _ 1 and group D _ 2 between group B _ 2 and group D _ 2 (P0. 05). There was significant difference between group B1 and group C _ 1, group C _ 2 and group D _ 2, group D _ 2 and group D _ 2, group C _ 2 and group D _ 2 were significantly different between group B _ 1 and group D _ 2 (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between group B1 and group B2 (P 0.05). There was no significant difference between group C 1 and group C 2 between group D 1 and group D 2 (P0. 05). Clinical trial study: the rate of bracket abscission was 10 / 52 (19.23?) in E group and 7 / 29 (24.14?) in F _ 1 group and 7 / 28 (25.00?) in F _ 2 group, and 5 / 22 (22.73?) G _ 2 group in G _ 2 group was 6 / 25 (24.00?) H _ 1 group was 6 / 23 (26.09?) H _ 2 group was 518% (27.78?) in F _ 2 group. There was no significant difference between each group (P 0.05). Conclusion 1. The first bond strength was greater than the secondary bond strength, and the bond strength of the six methods after the treatment of enamel and bracket met the clinical requirement of. 2. 2. Heat treatment brackets can be used instead of new brackets.
【学位授予单位】：遵义医学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：R783.5

【参考文献】