比较正畸治疗中镍钛闭合弹簧与弹性动力链空间闭合的疗效和效率。

S. Badran, Juman Al-zaben, Lina M Al-Taie, Haya Tbeishi, M. Al-Omiri
{"title":"比较正畸治疗中镍钛闭合弹簧与弹性动力链空间闭合的疗效和效率。","authors":"S. Badran, Juman Al-zaben, Lina M Al-Taie, Haya Tbeishi, M. Al-Omiri","doi":"10.2319/120721-906","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVES\nTo compare patient-reported pain, discomfort, and difficulty in maintaining proper brushing between nickel-titanium closed-coil springs (CS) and elastomeric power chains (PC) when used for space closure. The secondary aims were to compare plaque control and efficiency of space closure between these two force delivery systems.\n\n\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\nA total of 48 patients who required extractions of upper first premolars and distal movement of upper canines had the CS randomly allocated to either the right or left side. Blinding was applied at data collection and analysis. Primary outcomes were pain intensity measured on visual analog scale, pain onset and duration, discomfort, and difficulty in maintaining proper brushing from the start of canine retraction at baseline and at 6 and 12 weeks thereafter. Secondary outcomes were plaque scores and the rate of space closure.\n\n\nRESULTS\nNo significant differences in mean pain scores, pain onset, and duration at different time intervals between CS and PC were observed. The CS side was significantly less comfortable than the PC (P < .0001) and more difficult to keep clean (P = .008). No significant differences in plaque scores were observed between CS and PC groups at any time interval. CS produced a faster rate of space closure than did PC (P = .008).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nCS were less tolerated than PC by patients but produced an average of 0.5 mm more movement than did the PC during the 12-week study period.","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":"130 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing patient-centered outcomes and efficiency of space closure between nickel-titanium closed-coil springs and elastomeric power chains during orthodontic treatment.\",\"authors\":\"S. Badran, Juman Al-zaben, Lina M Al-Taie, Haya Tbeishi, M. Al-Omiri\",\"doi\":\"10.2319/120721-906\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVES\\nTo compare patient-reported pain, discomfort, and difficulty in maintaining proper brushing between nickel-titanium closed-coil springs (CS) and elastomeric power chains (PC) when used for space closure. The secondary aims were to compare plaque control and efficiency of space closure between these two force delivery systems.\\n\\n\\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\\nA total of 48 patients who required extractions of upper first premolars and distal movement of upper canines had the CS randomly allocated to either the right or left side. Blinding was applied at data collection and analysis. Primary outcomes were pain intensity measured on visual analog scale, pain onset and duration, discomfort, and difficulty in maintaining proper brushing from the start of canine retraction at baseline and at 6 and 12 weeks thereafter. Secondary outcomes were plaque scores and the rate of space closure.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nNo significant differences in mean pain scores, pain onset, and duration at different time intervals between CS and PC were observed. The CS side was significantly less comfortable than the PC (P < .0001) and more difficult to keep clean (P = .008). No significant differences in plaque scores were observed between CS and PC groups at any time interval. CS produced a faster rate of space closure than did PC (P = .008).\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nCS were less tolerated than PC by patients but produced an average of 0.5 mm more movement than did the PC during the 12-week study period.\",\"PeriodicalId\":94224,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Angle orthodontist\",\"volume\":\"130 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Angle orthodontist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2319/120721-906\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/120721-906","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的比较患者报告的疼痛、不适以及在镍钛闭合弹簧(CS)和弹性动力链(PC)用于空间闭合时保持适当刷牙的困难。第二个目的是比较这两种力传递系统之间的斑块控制和空间封闭效率。材料与方法48例需要拔除上颌第一前磨牙和上颌远端运动的患者,CS随机分配到右侧或左侧。数据收集和分析采用盲法。主要结果是用视觉模拟量表测量疼痛强度、疼痛的发生和持续时间、不适以及在基线和6周和12周后犬缩回开始时保持适当刷牙的困难程度。次要结果是斑块评分和空隙闭合率。结果两组在不同时间间隔的平均疼痛评分、疼痛发作和持续时间均无显著差异。CS侧明显不如PC侧舒适(P < 0.0001),更难以保持清洁(P = 0.008)。在任何时间间隔内,CS组和PC组的斑块评分均无显著差异。CS比PC产生更快的间隙闭合速度(P = 0.008)。结论:患者对scs的耐受性低于PC,但在12周的研究期间,scs比PC平均多产生0.5 mm的运动。
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
Comparing patient-centered outcomes and efficiency of space closure between nickel-titanium closed-coil springs and elastomeric power chains during orthodontic treatment.
OBJECTIVES To compare patient-reported pain, discomfort, and difficulty in maintaining proper brushing between nickel-titanium closed-coil springs (CS) and elastomeric power chains (PC) when used for space closure. The secondary aims were to compare plaque control and efficiency of space closure between these two force delivery systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 48 patients who required extractions of upper first premolars and distal movement of upper canines had the CS randomly allocated to either the right or left side. Blinding was applied at data collection and analysis. Primary outcomes were pain intensity measured on visual analog scale, pain onset and duration, discomfort, and difficulty in maintaining proper brushing from the start of canine retraction at baseline and at 6 and 12 weeks thereafter. Secondary outcomes were plaque scores and the rate of space closure. RESULTS No significant differences in mean pain scores, pain onset, and duration at different time intervals between CS and PC were observed. The CS side was significantly less comfortable than the PC (P < .0001) and more difficult to keep clean (P = .008). No significant differences in plaque scores were observed between CS and PC groups at any time interval. CS produced a faster rate of space closure than did PC (P = .008). CONCLUSIONS CS were less tolerated than PC by patients but produced an average of 0.5 mm more movement than did the PC during the 12-week study period.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Eruptive path of maxillary canines in patients with lateral incisor agenesis: a longitudinal follow-up. Which orthodontic articles are accessed online the most? Exploring article usage metrics along with citations and altmetrics. Three-dimensional assessment of the nasopharyngeal airway in Down syndrome during the mixed dentition period: a case-control study. Efficacy of planned moderate to severe torque changes in mandibular central incisors with an initial series of Invisalign aligners: a retrospective cohort study. An in vitro study of a combined patient-specific device for safe and accurate insertion of infrazygomatic crest miniscrews.
×
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