An evaluation of the efficacy of labial versus lingual bonded retainers: An in-vivo study.

Not yet recruiting

• Conditions: Patients requiring retainers after completion of fixed orthodontic treatment.

• Registration Number: CTRI/2022/06/043125
• Lead Sponsor: Dr Rinchin Yangzom

Brief Summary

Retention after treatment remains one of the greatest challenges in orthodontics. It is one of the controversies of modern orthodontics, with uncertainty being the only certainty. Angle stated that "the problem involved in retention is so great as to test the utmost skill of the most competent orthodontist, often being greater than the difficulties being encountered in the treatment of the case up to this point. ’’ The etiology of orthodontic relapse is complex and multifactorial. The identified related factors include tension from the periodontal fibers, the final occlusion, pressure from the soft tissues, growth, and age advancement. The risk of relapse is unpredictable and concerns a high proportion of post-orthodontic patients. There is evidence that during the post-retention period, 70-90% of the cases show some relapse in the lower arch; the upper arch is also affected but to a lesser extent. Many appliance types have been used for the retention of post-treatment tooth position. The first appliances proposed were based on banded fixed appliances, then removable retainers were advocated. After this, the use of bonded fixed retainers had been introduced. The advent of acid-etch technique heralded a new era in dentistry, however, it was some time before acid etching of enamel was applied in orthodontics. Newman first reported direct bonding of orthodontic attachments to tooth surfaces in 1965. Kneirim published the first report of the use of this technique to construct bonded fixed retainers. Early bonded fixed retainers were made with plain round or rectangular orthodontic wires, but Zachrisson proposed the potential advantages of the use of a multistrand wire for the construction of a canine-to-canine bonded fixed retainer. In this retainer the wire was bonded to the canine teeth only. In 1983 Zachrisson again reported the use of a multistrand wire in a bonded fixed retainer in which the wire was bonded to all the teeth in the labial segment. Currently, the flexible multistranded wire bonded to each anterior tooth is considered the gold standard. The preference to this retainer is attributed to the assumed extra mechanical retention to the composite resin due to the strands, and the wire’s flexibility that permits physiological tooth mobility and reduced tension in the composite. Now ideally, the choice of appropriate retainer for each individual patient should be made considering not only the clinical effectiveness, but also the patient’s ability to, and willingness to comply with the retention plan. Nowadays, a majority of the patients, being adolescents, are concerned about esthetics and do not favour a metallic wire being displayed whenever they speak or smile. So, the lingually-bonded retainers, being invisible, are preferred by most patients. However, it has certain drawbacks. If broken at some sites, it goes unnoticed by the patient for a long time and finally relapse occurs. Moreover, there are more chances of plaque and calculus retention in this type of retainers. Hence, keeping these points in mind, we can say that the labially-bonded retainers surpass the disadvantages of lingually-bonded retainers. However, many patients still do not prefer this due to unaesthetic reasons. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of labial versus lingual bonded retainers and also to evaluate the periodontal and oral hygiene status along with bond failures associated with both the retainers.

Detailed Description

Not available

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2022-06-13

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: Not Yet Recruiting
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 50

Inclusion Criteria

• 1.Subjects’ willingness to participate.
• 2.Age between 15-30 years.
• 3.Completion of fixed orthodontic treatment.
• 4.Both extraction and non-extraction cases.
• 5.No mutilated and congenitally missing teeth.
• 6.Absence of prosthesis (crowns, bridges, implants) and restorations.
• 7.Absence of parafunctional habits.
• 9.Presence of normal bite.

Exclusion Criteria

• 1.Patients with mutilated and congenitally missing teeth.
• 2.Presence of prosthesis and restorations.
• 3.Presence of periodontal or gingival disease.
• 4.Patients with history of parafunctional habits.
• 5.Presence of deep bite.
• 6.Patients with poor oral hygiene.
• 7.Patients prone to caries.

Study & Design

• Study Type: Interventional
• Study Design: Not specified

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
To compare and evaluate the efficacy of Labial versus Lingual surface bonded retainers	9 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
To evaluate the effects of both labial and lingual surface bonded retainers on the periodontal health and oral hygiene status of the patients.
To evaluate the labial surface bonded retainers’ esthetic perception by general public.

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Subharti Dental College and Hospital; 🇮🇳 Meerut, UTTAR PRADESH, India

Subharti Dental College and Hospital

🇮🇳Meerut, UTTAR PRADESH, India

Dr Rinchin Yangzom

Principal investigator

7409272987

rinchinyangzom@gmail.com