论文部分内容阅读
目的应用PAR指数对比评价唇侧直丝弓矫治直接粘接与间接粘接的临床疗效。方法选取传统唇侧正畸患者60例,均采用MBT直丝弓矫治技术,随机分成A组(直接粘接组)和B组(间接粘接组),每组30例。采用PAR指数对二组患者矫治前后的牙齿排列、颊侧咬合关系、覆盖、覆及中线情况进行评分和比较。评价二种粘接方式治疗错畸形的疗效,并对比二种粘接方式的临床粘接时间。结果二组患者治疗后各项PAR分值及PAR总分值相比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);加权总分差与加权总分减小百分率相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),加权总分差>22,加权总分减小百分率均>70%;二组患者临床粘接时间相比,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论传统唇侧直丝弓矫治直接粘接与间接粘接技术的临床矫治效果差异无统计学意义,均能达到令人满意的临床矫治结果。对于粘接时间而言,与直接粘接相比,采用间接粘接可以明显缩短临床操作时间。
Objective To evaluate the clinical effect of straightening lip and lateral lip for direct and indirect adhesive bonding with PAR index. Methods Sixty orthodontic patients with traditional labial orthodontics were selected. The patients were divided into group A (direct adhesive group) and group B (indirect adhesive group) with 30 cases in each group. PAR index was used to score and compare the dental arrangement, buccal occlusion relationship, coverage, overburden and midline before and after treatment. Evaluation of two kinds of adhesive treatment of malocclusions deformity curative effect, and compared the two bonding methods of clinical bonding time. Results There was no significant difference in PAR scores and PAR scores between the two groups after treatment (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference between the weighted total score and the weighted total score (P > 0.05). The weighted total score difference> 22, the weighted total score decreased> 70%. There was significant difference between the two groups in clinical bonding time (P <0.01). Conclusions There is no significant difference in the clinical effect of direct lip-stick fixation between direct bond and indirect bond, all of which can achieve satisfactory clinical results. For the bonding time, compared with direct bonding, the use of indirect bonding can significantly shorten the clinical operation time.