【摘要】 目的 :通过比较采用改良式间接粘接法与光固化直接粘接法粘接MBT托槽在总操作时间、椅旁操作时间、脱落率等方面的区别。方法 :临床选择AngleⅡ1 恒牙期患者 2 3例 ,年龄 10 .6～ 16岁 ,男 9例 ,女 14例 ,平均年龄14 .2岁 ,随机分为两组 ,分别采用光固化直接粘接法和改良式间接粘接法 (13例 )粘接托槽。结果 :表明间接粘接组与光固化直接粘接组相比 ,总操作时间多出 0 .39h ,但椅旁操作时间减少 0 .33h ,均具高度显著性差异 ,而托槽脱落率则无统计学差别。结论 :光固化直接粘接法与间接粘接法均能达到理想的托槽粘接效果。上午就诊的成人可选用光固化直接粘接法 ,而复诊患者较多时可选用间接法粘接更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective:The purpose of this study was to compare the modified indirect bonding with light-cured direct bonding of MBT bracket in the total operation time,clincal operation time and debonding rate.Methods:Twenty-three patients (9 males and 14 females),whose average age was 14.2 years (rang 10.6 to 16 years) with Class Ⅱ,Division Ⅰ malocclusion,were randomly divided into 2 groups.One group was treated with modified indirect bonding,the other with light-cured direct bonding.Results:The results showed that the total operation time of modified indirect bonding was 0.39 hours more than that of light-cured direct bonding.But the clinical operation time is 0.33 hours less.The difference of the two index were significant statisticly while the debonding rate had not significant difference.Conclutions:Both the light-cured direct-bonding and indirect bonding can obtain an idea result of bracket bonding.Direct bonding method can be adapted mainly for adults in morning and indirect bonding method will be more suitable for the more appointment patients when they come at the same time period.更多还原