Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Eur J Orthod ; 45(6): 637-644, 2023 11 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37032532

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To compare retainer survival, periodontal health, and caries implications of fixed lower retainers bonded after pre-treatment of the enamel surface with either pumice or sandblasting. TRIAL DESIGN: Two-arm parallel-group, two-center randomized controlled clinical trial. METHODS: One hundred sixty patients (101 females, 59 males, mean age: 17.9) requiring mandibular retainers were consecutively recruited. Patients were randomly allocated to have pre-treatment of the enamel surface with either pumice (n = 80) or sandblasting (n = 80). The primary outcome was retainer survival at 3 (T1) and 12 months (T2) control. Secondary outcomes were carious lesions and periodontal health: plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), calculus index (CI), and probing depth (PD). The randomization sequence was generated using an online randomization and allocation concealment was secured by contacting the sequence generator for treatment assignment. Blinding was not possible at T0 due to the nature of the intervention. Statistical analyses were carried out using the t-test, Fisher's exact test, repeated measure analysis of variance, and log rank test. RESULTS: Overall, the risk of bonding failure at T1 was 6.7 per cent and at T2 6.9 per cent. There were no statistically significant differences in failure rate between the two groups, neither at T1 (P = 1.000) nor at T2 (P = 0.360). No statistically significant differences were found for the intercanine periodontal indices GI, PI, CI, PD, and caries between the two groups at T0 and T1. At T2, significantly more gingivitis and plaque were seen in the sandblasting group (P = 0.05 and P = 0.047, respectively) compared with the pumice group. Calculus increased during the follow-up period in both groups (P ≤ 0.001) as well as plaque levels (P ≤ 0.001 and P = 0.025, respectively). No harm was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Enamel sandblasting prior to bonding mandibular retainers is not better at preventing bonding failure. REGISTRATION: 275767 (https://www.researchweb.org/is/sverige).


Asunto(s)
Cálculos , Placa Dental , Masculino , Femenino , Humanos , Adolescente , Retenedores Ortodóncicos/efectos adversos , Aparatos Ortodóncicos Fijos/efectos adversos , Placa Dental/etiología , Esmalte Dental , Cálculos/etiología , Diseño de Aparato Ortodóncico
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...