疼痛的临床比较:自结扎与传统固定正畸矫治器系统

IF 0.1 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2021-07-01 DOI:10.4103/ijor.ijor_9_21
S. Chopra, A. Kamboj
{"title":"疼痛的临床比较:自结扎与传统固定正畸矫治器系统","authors":"S. Chopra, A. Kamboj","doi":"10.4103/ijor.ijor_9_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Orthodontic treatment is always taken as a painful procedure. Pain from orthodontic treatment has been shown to have negative effects on oral hygiene efforts and to be a major reason for missing appointments. Materials and Methods: Thirty consecutive eligible patients were alternated between two groups. Group I individuals were bonded with 0.022-inch preadjusted edgewise brackets. Group II individuals were bonded with self-ligating brackets. At the end of the first appointment, the patients were given printed sheets to record visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Discomfort was assessed again at the first wire change as to whether one side was more or less comfortable when untied and when the new wire was ligated. Results: The minimum VAS score recorded was 0 and the maximum VAS score recorded in Group I was 5 and in Group II 6. The pain characteristic “while biting” was most commonly reported; none reported shooting pain. Conclusion: Engagement of archwire with both conventional ligating and self-ligating brackets causes pain, the difference between the two groups was statistically insignificant. After placement of the second archwire, more number of patients in SLB Group reported no pain, the measure mean intensity of pain was higher in conventional ligating group as compared to SLB Group; however, the difference between the two groups was statistically insignificant. The intensity of pain did not show any specific peaks. Patients rated disengagement of archwire as being not painful in both groups in the present study.","PeriodicalId":29888,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical comparison of pain: Self-ligating versus conventional fixed orthodontic appliance systems\",\"authors\":\"S. Chopra, A. Kamboj\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ijor.ijor_9_21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Orthodontic treatment is always taken as a painful procedure. Pain from orthodontic treatment has been shown to have negative effects on oral hygiene efforts and to be a major reason for missing appointments. Materials and Methods: Thirty consecutive eligible patients were alternated between two groups. Group I individuals were bonded with 0.022-inch preadjusted edgewise brackets. Group II individuals were bonded with self-ligating brackets. At the end of the first appointment, the patients were given printed sheets to record visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Discomfort was assessed again at the first wire change as to whether one side was more or less comfortable when untied and when the new wire was ligated. Results: The minimum VAS score recorded was 0 and the maximum VAS score recorded in Group I was 5 and in Group II 6. The pain characteristic “while biting” was most commonly reported; none reported shooting pain. Conclusion: Engagement of archwire with both conventional ligating and self-ligating brackets causes pain, the difference between the two groups was statistically insignificant. After placement of the second archwire, more number of patients in SLB Group reported no pain, the measure mean intensity of pain was higher in conventional ligating group as compared to SLB Group; however, the difference between the two groups was statistically insignificant. The intensity of pain did not show any specific peaks. Patients rated disengagement of archwire as being not painful in both groups in the present study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijor.ijor_9_21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijor.ijor_9_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:正畸治疗一直被认为是一个痛苦的过程。正畸治疗引起的疼痛已被证明对口腔卫生工作有负面影响,也是错过预约的主要原因。材料和方法:连续30例符合条件的患者在两组之间交替。第一组个体用0.022英寸预先调整的扁括号固定。第二组个体用自结扎托槽固定。在第一次预约结束时,给患者打印表格,记录视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分。在第一次换线时再次评估不适,以确定一侧在解开和结扎新导线时是否或多或少舒适。结果:第一组VAS评分最低为0分,第二组VAS评分最高为5分和6分。“边咬边”的疼痛特征最为常见;没有人报告有枪击疼痛。结论:弓丝与传统结扎托槽和自结扎托槽的咬合均引起疼痛,两组间差异无统计学意义。放置第二根弓丝后,SLB组更多的患者报告没有疼痛,常规结扎组的测量平均疼痛强度高于SLB组;然而,两组之间的差异在统计学上是不显著的。疼痛的强度没有显示出任何特定的峰值。在本研究中,两组患者都认为弓丝脱离并不痛苦。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Clinical comparison of pain: Self-ligating versus conventional fixed orthodontic appliance systems
Background: Orthodontic treatment is always taken as a painful procedure. Pain from orthodontic treatment has been shown to have negative effects on oral hygiene efforts and to be a major reason for missing appointments. Materials and Methods: Thirty consecutive eligible patients were alternated between two groups. Group I individuals were bonded with 0.022-inch preadjusted edgewise brackets. Group II individuals were bonded with self-ligating brackets. At the end of the first appointment, the patients were given printed sheets to record visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Discomfort was assessed again at the first wire change as to whether one side was more or less comfortable when untied and when the new wire was ligated. Results: The minimum VAS score recorded was 0 and the maximum VAS score recorded in Group I was 5 and in Group II 6. The pain characteristic “while biting” was most commonly reported; none reported shooting pain. Conclusion: Engagement of archwire with both conventional ligating and self-ligating brackets causes pain, the difference between the two groups was statistically insignificant. After placement of the second archwire, more number of patients in SLB Group reported no pain, the measure mean intensity of pain was higher in conventional ligating group as compared to SLB Group; however, the difference between the two groups was statistically insignificant. The intensity of pain did not show any specific peaks. Patients rated disengagement of archwire as being not painful in both groups in the present study.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation
International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Quality of Life (QoL) changes after orthognathic surgery: Do they correlate with the quantum of hard and soft tissue change? Airway Analysis in Different Malocclusions - A Cephalometric Study Perception of Dental Caries Risk and Prevention among Orthodontic Patients – A Cross-Sectional Survey Efficacy of Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy as an adjunct periodontal intervention in periodontally diseased subjects undergoing orthodontic therapy Uprighting A Horizontally Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Using Modified Bach’s Technique
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1