MedPath

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

Not Applicable
Completed
Conditions
Relapse
Interventions
Device: Twistflex retainer
Device: Orthoflex retainer
Registration Number
NCT05250765
Lead Sponsor
University Hospital, Ghent
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

Two general PICO questions can be formulated:

In an orthodontic patient (P), will fixed retention with a Ortho-flextech tm (Reliance orthodontic products, Itasca III, USA) (I) as compared to a 0.0195 in dead-soft coaxial wire (Respond; Ormco, Orange, Calif). (C) result in a more effective or efficient retention treatment (O)?

In an orthodontic patient (P), will placement of the retainer with rubber dam (I) result in less debonding (O) as compared to relative isolation with cotton rolls (C)?

Efficiency: is the procedure faster or cheaper than the alternative? Effectiveness: is the procedure better in maintaining the end result of treatment than the alternative? Are there less biomechanical or biological side effects?

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status
COMPLETED
Sex
All
Target Recruitment
114
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

Study & Design

Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Design
PARALLEL
Arm && Interventions
GroupInterventionDescription
Bonding with rubberdamOrthoflex retainerThe retainer is bonded under rubber dam isolation
Bonding under relative isolationOrthoflex retainerThe retainer is bonded under relative isolation (hygrophormic suction, cotton pads)
Bonding with rubberdamTwistflex retainerThe retainer is bonded under rubber dam isolation
Bonding under relative isolationTwistflex retainerThe retainer is bonded under relative isolation (hygrophormic suction, cotton pads)
Primary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
Little Irregularity indexMeasured 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 Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
Failure of the retainer (2)Through study completion (2 years)

Possible activation (unwanted tooth movement possible torque differences) is checked after treatment.

Periodontal index- BoPMeasured before removing braces (T0), after 6 months (T1), 1 year (T2) and 2 years (T3)

Bleeding on probing is registered after the periodontal status (%)

Failure of the retainer (1)Through study completion (2 years)

Debonding of the retainer is registered, the date and place of reparation.

Periodontal index- periodontal statusMeasured before removing braces (T0), after 6 months (T1), 1 year (T2) and 2 years (T3)

A periodontal status of the 6 anterior teeth is made, measuring probing depth 6 places per teeth

Periodontal index- plaqueMeasured before removing braces (T0), after 6 months (T1), 1 year (T2) and 2 years (T3)

Plaque measurement (%)

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

University of Ghent

🇧🇪

Ghent, Belgium

© Copyright 2025. All Rights Reserved by MedPath