Relapse and Failure Rates Between CAD/CAM and Conventional Fixed Retainers
- Conditions
- Relapse
- Interventions
- Other: Chairside RetainersOther: Computer Aided Design/ Computer Aided Manufacturing RetainersOther: Lab-based Retainers
- Registration Number
- NCT05915273
- Lead Sponsor
- Nourhan M.Aly
- Brief Summary
The aim of this study was to compare the differences in relapse and failure rates in patients treated with fixed retainers (FRs) using Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing technology, lab-based technique, and chairside method.
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- COMPLETED
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 43
- completion of comprehensive orthodontic treatment
- class I molar and canine relationships
- indication for a fixed retainer on the mandibular anterior teeth.
- no extractions done as part of their treatment.
- Treatment with preadjusted edgewise appliance.
- refusal to participate
- refusal to have fixed retainers
- poor oral hygiene
- non-compliance
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- PARALLEL
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description Chairside group Chairside Retainers - CAD/CAM group Computer Aided Design/ Computer Aided Manufacturing Retainers - Lab group Lab-based Retainers -
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Change in Little's Irregularity Index (LII) 2 years ICW was measured on the Meshlab software using the 3D ruler measurement tool. Pre-treatment, post-treatment, and post-retention measures were recorded and any change in the LII was considered relapse.
Change in intercanine width (ICW) 2 years ICW was measured on the Meshlab software using the 3D ruler measurement tool. Pre-treatment, post-treatment, and post-retention measures were recorded and any change in the ICW was considered relapse.
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method
Trial Locations
- Locations (1)
Saint Louis University
🇺🇸Saint Louis, Missouri, United States