三种不同弓丝的陶瓷托槽、金属插入陶瓷托槽和传统金属托槽之间摩擦力的比较评价:一项体外研究

IF 0.1 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
P. Thomas, Poornima Jnaneshwar, Krishnaraj Rajaram, S. Kishore, K. Venkatesan
{"title":"三种不同弓丝的陶瓷托槽、金属插入陶瓷托槽和传统金属托槽之间摩擦力的比较评价:一项体外研究","authors":"P. Thomas, Poornima Jnaneshwar, Krishnaraj Rajaram, S. Kishore, K. Venkatesan","doi":"10.4103/ijor.ijor_47_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate the frictional resistance of clarity advanced ceramic brackets, metal insert ceramic bracket, and conventional metal brackets with Nickel–titanium wire and stainless-steel archwire of varying dimensions. Materials and Methods: The sample size with 80% power was 45. The samples were divided into three groups each group consisting of 15, Group 1 – Clarity Advanced Ceramic Brackets (3M Unitek). Group 2 – Metal insert Ceramic Brackets (3M Unitek). Group 3 – Conventional Metal Brackets, the control group (3M Unitek). The wires used for testing were 0.016” Niti, 0.017 ×× 0.025” Niti and 0.019 ×× 0.025” SS. Results: In the present study, it was found that wire material (nickel titanium) had an effect on friction. It was found that metal insert ceramic bracket exhibited similar frictional resistance when compared to metal brackets for 0.017 × ×0.025” Niti and 0.019 × 0.025” SS wires. The Clarity Advanced bracket had the highest frictional resistance followed by metal insert ceramic and least with the conventional metal. Conclusion: Clarity advanced can be the bracket of choice for the esthetically discerning patients who do not require extraction for orthodontic reasons, but the high frictional resistance in relation to larger rectangular Niti archwires should be considered. In adult patients who require extraction in the treatment plan, metal insert ceramic brackets are definitely a pleasing alternative when compared to metal brackets.","PeriodicalId":29888,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of frictional forces between ceramic brackets, metal insert ceramic brackets, and conventional metal brackets with three different arch wires: An in vitro study\",\"authors\":\"P. Thomas, Poornima Jnaneshwar, Krishnaraj Rajaram, S. Kishore, K. Venkatesan\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ijor.ijor_47_20\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate the frictional resistance of clarity advanced ceramic brackets, metal insert ceramic bracket, and conventional metal brackets with Nickel–titanium wire and stainless-steel archwire of varying dimensions. Materials and Methods: The sample size with 80% power was 45. The samples were divided into three groups each group consisting of 15, Group 1 – Clarity Advanced Ceramic Brackets (3M Unitek). Group 2 – Metal insert Ceramic Brackets (3M Unitek). Group 3 – Conventional Metal Brackets, the control group (3M Unitek). The wires used for testing were 0.016” Niti, 0.017 ×× 0.025” Niti and 0.019 ×× 0.025” SS. Results: In the present study, it was found that wire material (nickel titanium) had an effect on friction. It was found that metal insert ceramic bracket exhibited similar frictional resistance when compared to metal brackets for 0.017 × ×0.025” Niti and 0.019 × 0.025” SS wires. The Clarity Advanced bracket had the highest frictional resistance followed by metal insert ceramic and least with the conventional metal. Conclusion: Clarity advanced can be the bracket of choice for the esthetically discerning patients who do not require extraction for orthodontic reasons, but the high frictional resistance in relation to larger rectangular Niti archwires should be considered. In adult patients who require extraction in the treatment plan, metal insert ceramic brackets are definitely a pleasing alternative when compared to metal brackets.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"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_47_20\",\"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_47_20","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:本研究的目的是比较和评价不同尺寸镍钛丝和不锈钢弓丝的透明先进陶瓷托槽、金属嵌套陶瓷托槽和传统金属托槽的摩擦阻力。材料与方法:80%倍率的样本量为45。样品分为三组,每组15个,第一组- Clarity Advanced Ceramic托架(3M Unitek)。第二组-金属插入陶瓷支架(3M Unitek)。第三组-常规金属支架,对照组(3M Unitek)。试验使用的丝材分别为0.016 " Niti, 0.017 ×× 0.025 " Niti和0.019 ×× 0.025 " SS。结果:在本研究中,发现丝材(镍钛)对摩擦有影响。结果表明,与0.017 × ×0.025”Niti线和0.019 ×0.025”SS线的金属支架相比,金属插入陶瓷支架具有相似的摩擦阻力。Clarity Advanced支架具有最高的摩擦阻力,其次是金属插入陶瓷,最小的是传统金属。结论:对于因正畸原因不需要拔牙的美观患者,可选择高清晰度支架,但需考虑较大矩形镍钛弓丝的高摩擦阻力。在治疗计划中需要拔牙的成年患者中,与金属托槽相比,金属插入陶瓷托槽绝对是一种令人满意的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative evaluation of frictional forces between ceramic brackets, metal insert ceramic brackets, and conventional metal brackets with three different arch wires: An in vitro study
Background: The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate the frictional resistance of clarity advanced ceramic brackets, metal insert ceramic bracket, and conventional metal brackets with Nickel–titanium wire and stainless-steel archwire of varying dimensions. Materials and Methods: The sample size with 80% power was 45. The samples were divided into three groups each group consisting of 15, Group 1 – Clarity Advanced Ceramic Brackets (3M Unitek). Group 2 – Metal insert Ceramic Brackets (3M Unitek). Group 3 – Conventional Metal Brackets, the control group (3M Unitek). The wires used for testing were 0.016” Niti, 0.017 ×× 0.025” Niti and 0.019 ×× 0.025” SS. Results: In the present study, it was found that wire material (nickel titanium) had an effect on friction. It was found that metal insert ceramic bracket exhibited similar frictional resistance when compared to metal brackets for 0.017 × ×0.025” Niti and 0.019 × 0.025” SS wires. The Clarity Advanced bracket had the highest frictional resistance followed by metal insert ceramic and least with the conventional metal. Conclusion: Clarity advanced can be the bracket of choice for the esthetically discerning patients who do not require extraction for orthodontic reasons, but the high frictional resistance in relation to larger rectangular Niti archwires should be considered. In adult patients who require extraction in the treatment plan, metal insert ceramic brackets are definitely a pleasing alternative when compared to metal brackets.
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信