Comparative study on the clinical performance of concealable traction hook spherical buccal tubes versus conventional rectangular buccal tubes

doi:10.7518/hxkq.2025.2025378

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective This study comprehensively compares the differences between concealable traction hook spherical buccal tubes (concealable spherical tubes) and conventional rectangular buccal tubes in terms of patient comfort, incidence of buccal mucosal injury, periodontal health indices, and clinical bond failure rate to provide evidence for clinical application. Methods Thirty subjects were enrolled and treated using a split-mouth design, where the two sides of each patient’s oral cavity were randomly assigned to receive either conventional rectangular buccal tubes (group A) or concealable spherical buccal tubes (group B). During treatment, pain scores, ulcer occurrence, and bond failure of the first molar buccal tubes were recorded. Periodontal indices, including plaque index (PLI), gingival index (GI), and sulcus bleeding index (SBI) of the first molars, were assessed before treatment (T0) and 30 days after tube bonding (T1). Results The pain scores in group A were significantly higher than those in group B (Z=-5.231, P<0.001). Moderate or higher pain was reported by 86.7% of patients in group A, whereas 90.0% of patients in group B reported mild pain only. The incidence of ulcers in group A (76.7%) was significantly higher than that in group B (3.3%, Z=-4.508, P<0.001). After treatment, the periodontal indices in both groups increased significantly compared to pre-treatment levels (P<0.05); however, the increases in PLI, GI, and SBI were significantly greater in group A than in group B (P<0.001). The bond failure rate in group A (26.7%) was significantly higher than that in group B (8.3%, P<0.001). Conclusion The clinical performance of concealable spherical buccal tubes is significantly superior to that of conventional rectangular buccal tubes in improving patient comfort, reducing the incidence of mucosal injury and clinical bond failure, and maintaining periodontal health. This design offers patients a more comfortable and healthier orthodontic treatment experience.

Key words: spherical buccal tube, rectangular buccal tube, comfort, periodontal health, bond failure rate

CLC Number:

R783.5

Li Silang, Zhang Ling, Cui Mengya, Zhong Tingjin, Chen Ziyang, Song Wenlu, Han Yu, Ji Li. Comparative study on the clinical performance of concealable traction hook spherical buccal tubes versus conventional rectangular buccal tubes[J]. West China Journal of Stomatology, 2026, 44(1): 48-53.

Figures/Tables 2

References 22

[1]	卢艳萍, 陈斌, 马玲, 等. 粘接式颊面管与带环颊面管对牙周健康影响的观察[J]. 中国城乡企业卫生, 2020(8): 172-174.
	Lu YP, Chen B, Ma L, et al. Observation of periodontal health influence of using bonding type and ring band type buccal[J]. Chin J Urban Rural Enterp Hyg, 2020(8): 172-174.
[2]	Chang J, Li X. Multivariate analysis of oral mucosal ulcers during orthodontic treatment[J]. World J Clin Ca-ses, 2024, 12(26): 5868-5876.
[3]	Manuelli M, Marcolina M, Nardi N, et al. Oral mucosal complications in orthodontic treatment[J]. Minerva Stomatol, 2019, 68(2): 84-88.
[4]	Buyukcavus E, Ugurlu M, Buyukcavus MH. Shear bond strength of orthodontic molar tubes to composite restoration bonded with particular adhesives after different surface pre-treatments[J]. Orthod Craniofac Res, 2022, 25(4): 541-548.
[5]	Hussein S, Ismail H. Influence of reminder on enhan-cing compliance in patients with fixed orthodontic app-liance treatment (a randomized controlled clinical trial) [J]. Patient Prefer Adherence, 2023, 17: 1759-1769.
[6]	Sew Hoy W, Antoun J, Lin W, et al. Ecological momentary assessment of pain in adolescents undergoing or-thodontic treatment using a smartphone app[J]. Semin Orthod, 2018, 24(2): 209-216.
[7]	Pedersen AML, Bukkehave KH, Bennett EP, et al. Effect of lozenges containing Lactobacillus reuteri on the severity of recurrent aphthous ulcers: a pilot study[J]. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins, 2020, 12(3): 819-823.
[8]	Kim JM, Yoo SY, An JS, et al. Effect of a multichannel oral irrigator on periodontal health and the oral microbiome[J]. Sci Rep, 2023, 13(1): 12043.
[9]	Guo L, Feng Y, Guo HG, et al. Consequences of ortho-dontic treatment in malocclusion patients: clinical and microbial effects in adults and children[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2016, 16(1): 112.
[10]	贺红, 吉利. 浅谈正畸临床矫治新技术—球托止动定位轻力5s系统[J]. 国际口腔医学杂志, 2024, 51(2): 125-136.
	He H, Ji L. Discussion of an innovating orthodontic te-chnique: a spherical bracket, lock-hook and light force treatment system[J]. Int J Stomatol, 2024, 51(2): 125-136.
[11]	Volovic J, Badirli S, Ahmad S, et al. A novel machine learning model for predicting orthodontic treatment duration[J]. Diagnostics (Basel), 2023, 13(17): 2740.
[12]	李英, 王胜国. 固定正畸期间创伤性口腔溃疡的防治研究进展[J]. 现代医药卫生, 2023, 39(6): 1024-1028.
	Li Y, Wang SG. Research progress on prevention and treatment of traumatic oral ulcer during fixed orthodontics[J]. J Mod Med Health, 2023, 39(6): 1024-1028.
[13]	Jepsen K, Sculean A, Jepsen S. Complications and treatment errors involving periodontal tissues related to orthodontic therapy[J]. Periodontol 2000, 2023, 92(1): 135-158.
[14]	Tu KW, Kuo CH, Hung CC, et al. Strategic sequencing of orthodontic treatment and periodontal regenerative surgery: a literature review[J]. J Dent Sci, 2025, 20(3): 1391-1397.
[15]	Huser MC, Baehni PC, Lang R. Effects of orthodontic bands on microbiologic and clinical parameters[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1990, 97(3): 213-218.
[16]	Kim JE, Kim S, Kim DH. Comparison of oral health status, oral hygiene management behaviours and satisfaction of patients with fixed orthodontic appliance and clear aligner: a quasi-experimental design[J]. Int J Dent Hyg, 2024, 22(4): 939-948.
[17]	郭龙妹, 吉利, 张玲, 等. 球面和方形自锁托槽对牙周指数及龈沟液炎性因子的影响[J]. 医药论坛杂志, 2022, 43(9): 1-6, 10.
	Guo LM, Ji L, Zhang L, et al. Effects of spherical self-ligating bracket and square self-ligating bracket on pe-riodontal indices and inflammatory cytokine levels[J]. J Med Forum, 2022, 43(9): 1-6, 10.
[18]	Öncel NA, Ulusoy N, Ulusoy C. Comparison of shear bond strength and residual adhesive remnants on the ena-mel surface after debonding of three different orthodontic molar tubes: a scanning electron microscope study[J]. J Orofac Orthop, 2024, 85(): 94-101.
[19]	杨瑞婷, 张洁, 许雅芬, 等. 金属托槽粘接性能及脱落率相关影响因素的研究进展[J]. 现代口腔医学杂志, 2025, 39(3): 250-253, 209.
	Yang RT, Zhang J, Xu YF, et al. Research progress on factors influencing the bonding performance and debon-ding rate of metal brackets[J]. J Modern Stomatol, 2025, 39(3): 250-253, 209.
[20]	Knaup I, Schulte U, Bartz JR, et al. Post-treatment stabi-lity in orthodontic retention with Twistflex retainers-Do patients benefit from additional removable retainers[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2022, 26(8): 5215-5222.
[21]	Hardalupas Y, Taylor AMKP, Wilkins JH. Experimental investigation of sub-millimetre droplet impingement on to spherical surfaces[J]. Int J Heat Fluid Flow, 1999, 20(5): 477-485.
[22]	Ma X, Jiang C, Zhang J, et al. Finite element analysis of the impact of different traction anchorage locations on maxillary molar distalization with clear aligners and implant screws[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2025, 25(1): 1327.

牙周指数	组别	T0	T1	P₁值	T1-T0	P₂值
PLI	A	0.22±0.41	1.82±0.39	<0.000 1	1.60±0.39	<0.000 1
	B	0.23±0.15	1.21±0.41	<0.000 1	0.98±0.29	<0.000 1
GI	A	0.35±0.48	1.51±0.50	<0.000 1	1.16±0.49	<0.000 1
	B	0.35±0.48	1.13±0.34	<0.000 1	0.78±0.39	<0.000 1
SBI	A	0.98±0.13	2.90±0.30	<0.000 1	1.92±0.27	<0.000 1
	B	1.02±0.46	2.40±0.49	<0.000 1	1.38±0.49	<0.000 1