FURKAN DİNDAROĞLU, Ege DOĞAN, SERVET DOĞAN

Direkt Ve İndirekt Yapıştırmada Klinik Çalışma Zamanı Ve Braket Kopma Miktarlarının Karşılaştırmalı Olarak Değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı; direkt ve indirekt yöntem ile yapılan braket yapıştırma işleminde, klinikte geçen çalışma zamanı ve birinci ayda gözlenen braket kopma oranlarını karşılaştırmaktır. Yöntem: Ege Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı'na ortodontik tedavi amacıyla başvuran hafif çapraşıklığı olan Angle sınıf I maloklüzyonuna sahip toplam 40 birey çalışmaya dâhil edilmiştir. Hastalar rastgele iki gruba ayrılarak 20 kişinin üst çenesine indirekt yapıştırma yöntemi uygulanırken, alt çenesine direkt yöntemle yapıştırma yapılmıştır. Diğer 20 hastada ise, üst çenede direkt, alt çenede ise indirekt yöntem kullanılmıştır. Uygulama esnasında her iki yöntemde de hasta başında geçen süre ve ilk ayda braketlerde görülen kopma miktarları tespit edilmiştir. Verilerin istatistiksel değerlendirilmesinde bağımsız iki örnek t test kullanılmıştır. İstatistiksel önem sınırı p

The Evaluation Of Clinical Chair Time And Bracket Failure Rates Between Direct And Indirect Bonding Methods

Objectives: The aim of this study is to compare the clinical chair time and bracket failure rates in the first month after bonding, in the direct and indirect bonding methods. Methods: A total of 40 patients with Angle Class I malocclusion with mild crowding who referred to Ege University, Faculty of Dentistry and Department of Orthodontics. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. 20 patients had indirect bonding method on the upper jaw, and indirect bonding method on the lower jaw. Other 20 patients had direct bonding on the upper jaw and indirect bonding on the lower jaw. The clinical chair time and the bracket failure rates in first month after bonding were compared. The datas were evaluated with the independent sample t-test. The significance level was determined as p

PDF

___

1. Nichols DA, Gardner G, Carballeyra AD. Reproducibility of bracket positioning in the indirect bonding technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144: 770-776.
2. Zachrisson BU, Büyükyilmaz T. Bonding in orthodontics. Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL Jr, Vig KW, eds. Orthodontics, Current Principles and Techniques, 4th edn. St Louis, MO: Elsevier; 2005. p. 579-659.
3. Kalange JT. Ideal appliance placement with APC brackets and indirect bonding. J Clin Orthod 1999; 33: 516–526.
4. Sunna S, Rock WP. Clinical performance of orthodontic brackets and adhesive systems: a randomized clinical trial. Br J Orthod 1998; 25: 283–287.
5. Echarri, P. Revisiting the History of Lingual Orthodontics: A Basis for the Future. Semin Orthod 2006; 12: 153-159.
6. Aguirre M, King G, Waldron J. Assessment of bracket placement and bond strength when comparing direct bonding to indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod 1982; 82: 269–276.
7. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955; 34: 849-853.
8. Hocevar RA, Vincent HF. Indirect versus direct bonding: bond strength and failure location. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988; 94: 367-371.
9. Sondhi A. Efficient and effective indirect bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 115: 352–359.
10. Gia K. Yi, William J. Dunn,Louis J. Taloumis: Shear bond strength comparison between direct and indirect bonded orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124: 577-581.
11. Harari D, Aunni E, Gillis I, Redlich M. A new multipurpose dental adhesive for orthodontic use: an in vitro bond-strength study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118: 307-310.
12. Castilla AE, Crowe JJ, Moses JR, Wang M, Ferracane JL, Covell DA Jr: Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques. Angle Orthod 2014; 84: 607-614.
13. Dalessandri D, Dalessandri M, Bonetti S, Visconti L, Paganelli C: Effectiveness of an indirect bonding technique in reducing plaque accumulation around braces. Angle Orthod 2012; 82: 313-318.
14. S. Thomas Deahl, Norman Salome, John P. Hatch, John D. Rugh. Practice-based comparison of direct and indirect bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 738-742.
15. Wiechamann D, Rummel V, Thalheim A, Simon JS, Wiechmann L. Customized brackets and archwires for lingual orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124, 593–599.
16. Bozelli JV, Bigliazzi R, Barbosa HA, Ortolani CL, Bertoz FA, Faltin Junior K. Comparative study on direct and indirect bracket bonding techniques regarding time length and bracket detachment. Dental Press J Orthod 2013; 18: 51-57.
17. Collins J. A precise and predictable laboratory procedure for indire- ct bonding. J Clin Orthod 2000; 34: 702-705.
18. Echarri P, Kim T. Double transfer trays for indirect bonding. J Clin Orthod 2004; 38: 8-13.
19. Thiyagarajah S, Spary DJ, Rock WP. A clinical comparison of bracket bond failures in association with direct and indirect bonding. J Orthod 2006; 33: 198–204.
20. Zachrisson BU, Brobakken BO. Clinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives. Am J Orthod 1978; 74: 62-78.
21. Higgins DW. Indirect bonding with light-cured adhesive and a hybrid transfer tray. Semin Orthod 2007; 13: 64-68.