Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Three Class II Correctors in Orthodontics, Prospective Expertise Matched Controlled Trial
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 入组人数
- 183
- 主要终点
- establishing which appliance has the fastest completion time
研究概览
简要总结
To investigate each treatment modality in its "optimal" environment to avoid operator experience bias. Therefore we propose to operate out of three "specialist centres" with specific units providing one modality alone Which of the three orthodontic appliances does achieve best clinical progress, produce least discomfort to the patient, minimize the time taken for completion of treatment and maximize compliance.
详细描述
Patients and materials: The patient population will consist of patients age 10-16 that have, or are close to having, a full permanent dentition, and present to the clinic with Class II malocclusions with more than 1/2 unit II molar relationship. (Normal or deep overbite cases are also included). The treatments to be compared are the three (routinely-used) orthodontic appliances: Twin Block, Herbst and Frog.
Hypothesis: The principal (null) hypothesis is that there is no difference between the three appliances in terms of their effectiveness, efficiency and compliance.
Study design: The study is designed as a multicentre, Prospective Expertise Based Matched Controlled Longitudinal Trial and the assessments will be longitudinal in time.
All patients that consent/assent to be part of the study (and their parents) will receive an information leaflet about the study and will be asked to sign an assent form. Patients are free to discontinue treatment if they wish to do so. The normal length of orthodontic treatment is between 18 and 24 months. Assessments will be taken prior to treatment and throughout the treatment period, with regular progress reviews every 3 months, as per standard practice.
Outcomes: The principal outcome for efficiency is the time taken for completion of treatment. The principal outcomes for effectiveness are the clinical progress, discomfort (caused by the appliance to the patient) and compliance.
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Interventional
- 分配方式
- Non Randomized
- 干预模型
- Parallel
- 主要目的
- Treatment
- 盲法
- None
入排标准
- 年龄范围
- 10 Years 至 16 Years（Child）
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 是
入选标准
- •Patients aged 10-16 years of age in the late mixed/permanent dentition with Class II malocclusions (Both Cl II div 1 and Cl II div 2)
- •> 1/2 unit Class II molar relationship bilaterally (at least 3.5mm)
- •Normal or deep overbite cases will be included
- •Skeletal Class II relationship (ANB > 4°)
- •Overjet ≥ 5 mm in Cl II/1 cases
- •Non-extraction cases
排除标准
- •Children in the early mixed dentition
- •Class I and Class III malocclusions
- •Malocclusions with less than 1/2 unit II molar relationship
- •Reduced overbite / anterior openbite
- •Medically compromised patients, syndromic patients or patients with severe facial asymmetry
- •Special needs patients not able to comply with instructions / difficulty with compliance
- •Hypodontia or extracted permanent tooth (except third molars)
- •Poor oral hygiene with both Gingival bleeding Index and Plaque Index scoring no more than 1
研究组 & 干预措施
Twin Block
61 patients will receive the Twin Block appliance (one of the three appliances being studied)
干预措施: Twin Block, Herbst, Frog distalising appliance (Device)
Herbst
61 patients will receive the Herbst appliance (one of the three appliances being studied)
干预措施: Twin Block, Herbst, Frog distalising appliance (Device)
Frog distalising appliance
61 patients will receive the Frog distalising appliance (one of the three appliances being studied)
干预措施: Twin Block, Herbst, Frog distalising appliance (Device)
结局指标
主要结局
establishing which appliance has the fastest completion time
时间窗: 18-24 months
The three appliances will be compared in 'months' from the start of treatment till the completion of treatment to see which is the fastest to achieve the end result
Number of participants who have experienced discomfort related to wearing the appliance
时间窗: 18-24 months
This is to check which appliance produces more discomfort compared to the other appliances using the Likert scale. Each question on the scale asks to rate the pain as either (no pain, slight pain, moderate pain, severe pain) or (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree). Patients will choose a response which matches their experience.
次要结局
未报告次要终点