ObjectiveThis 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.MethodsThirty 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).ResultsThe 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).ConclusionThe 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.
