Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT05250765
NCT05250765CompletedNot Applicable

Comparison of Efficiency and Effectiveness of Two Types of Bonded Orthodontic Retainers: an RCT.

University Hospital, Ghent2 sites in 1 country114 target enrollmentStarted: September 1, 2020Last updated:
Conditions

Trial Snapshot

Phase
Not Applicable
Status
Completed
Enrollment
114
Locations
2
Primary Endpoint
Little Irregularity index

Study Overview

Brief Summary

Comparson of efficiency and effectiveness of twisted/coaxial and linked retainers, placed under relative versus absolute isolation.

Detailed Description

The domain of orthodontic retention is controversial. Orthodontic retention is the final step in an orthodontic procedure, and is performed after removal of the orthodontic appliance. Its goal is to prevent the relapse in occlusion or positioning of the teeth. Every patient will need some form of retention to maintain the ideal result. The bonded retainer is frequently used in the lower incisor region. It is capable to prevent relapse of orthodontic treatment but prevents tertiary crowding as well. Advantages of fixed retainers are in general no need for compliance and optimal aesthetics. The retention wire can stay in place for many years. Currently, there is a tendency towards lifelong retention. Disadvantages are more plaque and calculus accumulation, and possibly a poorer periodontal index.

Many types of bonded retainers with different properties could be bonded, each with different effects on periodontal health, potentially a different ability to maintain alignment, and different amounts of failure.

Different types of failure of fixed bonded retainers are possible. When the retainer does not stay in place and is debonded, this is is described as failure. It is also possible the retainer maintains bonded but shows unwanted tooth movement in the bonded teeth. This can also be described as a failure.

Bonding of the retention wire is a technique sensitive process. Correct and passive bonding could prevent debonding of the retainers. To eliminate moisture in the bonding process, it is possible to place a rubberdam before bonding the retainer.

One aim of this study is to compare two types of bonded retainer: the standard coaxial or twisted retainer. The other aim is to compare two bonding protocols with and without rubberdam isolation

Study Design

Study Type
Interventional
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention Model
Parallel
Primary Purpose
Treatment
Masking
None

Eligibility Criteria

Sex
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Yes

Inclusion Criteria

  • Fixed orthodontic appliances upper and lower jaw
  • Patient stays for 2 years in Belgium
  • Parents consent
  • Proper oral hygiene

Exclusion Criteria

  • Orthognathic surgery
  • Craniofacial disorders
  • Cleft lip palate patients
  • Orthodontic treatment without fixed appliances
  • Extra retention other than bonded wire in the lower jaw

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Little Irregularity index

Time Frame: Measured before removing braces (T0), after 6 months (T1), 1 year (T2) and 2 years (T3)

Stability of treatment. The index measures the distance, in millimetres, between the contact points of crooked teeth, and then adds them together. Therefore,the Irregularity Index is the sum of all the displaced contacts between the anterior teeth (canine to canine)

Secondary Outcomes

  • Failure of the retainer (2)(Through study completion (2 years))
  • Periodontal index- BoP(Measured before removing braces (T0), after 6 months (T1), 1 year (T2) and 2 years (T3))
  • Failure of the retainer (1)(Through study completion (2 years))
  • Periodontal index- periodontal status(Measured before removing braces (T0), after 6 months (T1), 1 year (T2) and 2 years (T3))
  • Periodontal index- plaque(Measured before removing braces (T0), after 6 months (T1), 1 year (T2) and 2 years (T3))

Investigators

Sponsor Class
Other
Responsible Party
Sponsor

Study Sites (2)

Loading locations...

Similar Trials