發(fā)布時間：2018-07-01 20:33

  本文選題：抗剪切強(qiáng)度 + 再粘結(jié)��； 參考：《遵義醫(yī)學(xué)院》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：目的：本研究采用三種不同方法處理托槽脫落后的釉面，并重粘新托槽或熱處理托槽，觀察臨床托槽的再次脫落率和通過離體牙實驗檢測其抗剪切強(qiáng)度，將臨床觀察結(jié)果與實驗測量結(jié)果相結(jié)合，探討托槽脫落后牙面和托槽的處理方法。 方法： 離體牙實驗研究：收集70顆因正畸矯治需要拔出的前磨牙，取70顆方絲弓托槽粘結(jié)在前磨牙頰側(cè)，完成后取10顆前磨牙作為對照組（A組），直接測量其抗剪切強(qiáng)度。用去托槽鉗將剩余60顆前磨牙上的托槽去除，將牙齒按每組10顆隨機(jī)分為6組，并作以下處理：B1組使用碳鎢磨頭打磨殘留粘結(jié)劑，重粘新托槽；B2組使用碳鎢磨頭打磨殘留粘結(jié)劑，重粘熱處理托槽；C1組使用碳鎢磨頭打磨殘留粘結(jié)劑后拋光釉面，重粘新托槽；C2組使用碳鎢磨頭打磨殘留粘結(jié)劑后拋光釉面，重粘熱處理托槽；D1組使用矽粒子打磨殘留粘結(jié)劑并拋光釉面，重粘新托槽；D2組使用矽粒子打磨殘留粘結(jié)劑并拋光釉面，重粘熱處理托槽，測量各組的抗剪切強(qiáng)度。 臨床試驗研究：選擇2012-2013年就診于遵醫(yī)五院口腔科的正畸病人作為研究對象，其中8例病人的52顆需要首次粘結(jié)托槽的前磨牙作為對照組（E組），101例病人的145顆有托槽脫落的前磨牙作為試驗組，將其隨機(jī)分為6組，并作以下處理：F1組，使用碳鎢磨頭打磨殘留粘結(jié)劑，重粘新托槽；F2組，使用碳鎢磨頭打磨殘留粘結(jié)劑，重粘熱處理托槽；G1組，使用碳鎢磨頭打磨殘留粘結(jié)劑后拋光釉面，重粘新托槽；G2組，使用碳鎢磨頭打磨殘留粘結(jié)劑后拋光釉面，重粘熱處理托槽；H1組，使用矽粒子打磨殘留粘結(jié)劑并拋光釉面，重粘新托槽；H2組，使用矽粒子打磨殘留粘結(jié)劑并拋光釉面，重粘熱處理托槽。經(jīng)三個月觀察，記錄各組托槽脫落的個數(shù)，并計算各組的托槽脫落率。 結(jié)果： 離體牙實驗研究：各組離體牙的抗剪切強(qiáng)度，A組為15.73±2.74MPa；B1組為12.67±3.99MPa； B2組為10.92±3.49MPa； C1組為11.90±4.75MPa； C2組為9.0±1.45MPa；D1組為9.0±3.75MPa；D2組為7.92±2.93MPa。A組與C1組、D1組、B2組、C2組、D2組之間的差別具有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義（P㩳0.05），B1組與D1組、B2組與D2組之間的差別具有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義（P㩳0.05），B1組與C1組、C1組與D1組、B2組與C2組、C2組與D2組間差別無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P㧐0.05)。B1組與B2組、C1組與C2組、D1組與D2組之間的差別無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P㧐0.05)。 臨床試驗研究：各組托槽脫落率，E組為10/52(19.23㳠)；F1組為7/29（24.14㳠）；F2組為7/28(25.00㳠)；G1組為5/22(22.73㳠)；G2組為6/25(24.00㳠)；H1組為6/23(26.09㳠)；H2組為5/18(27.78㳠)。各組之間的差別無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P㧐0.05)。 結(jié)論：1.首次粘結(jié)強(qiáng)度大于二次粘結(jié)強(qiáng)度，六種方法處理釉面和托槽后其粘結(jié)強(qiáng)度均滿足臨床要求。2.熱處理托槽可替代新托槽進(jìn)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 鹵2.74 MPA (12.67 鹵3.99 MPA), B2 (10.92 鹵3.49), C1 (11.90 鹵4.75 MPA), C2 (9.0 鹵1.45 MPA / D1) and C _ 2 (9.0 鹵3.75 MPA / L), respectively, compared with those in group A (12.67 鹵3.99MPa), group B2 (10.92 鹵3.49MPa), group C1 (9.0 鹵1.45MPaD), group C (9.0 鹵3.75MPa). There was significant difference between D2 group (7.92 鹵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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遵義醫(yī)學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：R783.5

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 岳世超;白玉興;;正畸粘接風(fēng)險研究進(jìn)展[J];北京口腔醫(yī)學(xué);2012年06期

2 陳雙;樊明月;涂世軍;詹黎;;兩種方法去除正畸牙面樹脂粘結(jié)劑的效果評價[J];口腔醫(yī)學(xué);2011年11期

3 劉進(jìn);伍軍;;淺析托槽黏結(jié)強(qiáng)度的影響因素[J];實用臨床醫(yī)學(xué);2010年04期

4 陳驪;張菊菊;趙丙姣;;三種方法去除金屬托槽粘結(jié)劑對牙面影響的研究[J];中國美容醫(yī)學(xué);2011年01期

5 徐東偉;;影響托槽粘結(jié)強(qiáng)度相關(guān)因素的研究[J];中國民族民間醫(yī)藥;2010年22期

6 肖云鶴;原工杰;王妍;Q藍(lán)，

本文編號：2089079