Comparison Between Lingual and Labial Fixed Orthodontic Appliances in the Treatment of Crowding Cases

NCT ID: NCT03850951

Last Updated: 2022-02-14

Basic Information

• Recruitment Status: COMPLETED
• Clinical Phase: NA
• Total Enrollment: 44 participants
• Study Classification: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Start Date: 2018-02-22
• Study Completion Date: 2021-12-15

Brief Summary

Patients who have moderate crowding that could be treated without extraction will be treated in this study using either lingual or labial fixed orthodontic appliances. All patients will receive a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan in two different times (T0: before treatment, T1: after treatment). The dentoalveolar changes will be assessed.

Detailed Description

Lingual orthodontic appliances provide an ultimate esthetic solution for patients who do not want visible orthodontic appliances. Recently, lingual orthodontic treatment outcomes have become similar and comparable to those produced with labial orthodontic treatment. However, placement of orthodontic brackets on the lingual surfaces of teeth causes changes in their morphology, which results in articulation problems, chewing difficulties, tongue irritation and other impairments. In this respect, the main difference between the labial and lingual techniques is the distance between the point of application of the force that is transmitted through the bracket and the centre of resistance of the tooth. Consequently, the displacement and stress induced in bone by these two techniques will also differ, and these need to be evaluated so that useful comparisons can be made between these two techniques. Patients who have moderate crowding that could be treated without extraction will be treated in this study using either lingual or labial fixed orthodontic appliances. All patients will receive a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan in two different times (T0: before treatment, T1: after treatment). The dentoalveolar changes will be assessed.

Conditions

Crowding

Study Design

• Allocation Method: RANDOMIZED
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Primary Study Purpose: TREATMENT
• Blinding Strategy: SINGLE

Study Groups

Lingual appliances "AO®"

Patients with moderate crowding will be treated without extraction using lingual fixed appliances from American Orthodontics company.

Group Type: EXPERIMENTAL

Lingual appliances

Intervention Type: DEVICE

Patients with moderate crowding will be treated without extraction using lingual appliances.

Labial appliances "AO®"

Patients with moderate crowding will be treated without extraction using labial fixed appliances from American Orthodontics company.

Group Type: EXPERIMENTAL

Labial appliances

Intervention Type: DEVICE

Patients with moderate crowding will be treated without extraction using labial appliances.

Interventions

Lingual appliances

Patients with moderate crowding will be treated without extraction using lingual appliances.

Intervention Type: DEVICE

Labial appliances

Patients with moderate crowding will be treated without extraction using labial appliances.

Intervention Type: DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

• Class I malocclusion.
• Moderate crowding in the dental arch (3 to 5-mm tooth-size arch-length discrepancy).

Exclusion Criteria

• Inappropriate oral hygiene and periodontal diseases.
• Previous orthodontic treatment.
• Craniofacial syndromes, cleft lip and/or palate (soft and/or hard).
• Subject with systemic diseases.

• Minimum Eligible Age: 18 Years
• Maximum Eligible Age: 25 Years
• Eligible Sex: ALL
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No

Sponsors

Damascus University

OTHER

Sponsor Role: lead

Responsible Party

Responsibility Role: SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Ahmad S Burhan, PhD.

Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR

Faculty of Dentistry, Damascus University

Locations

Damascus University

Damascus, , Syria

Countries

Syria

References

Fritz U, Diedrich P, Wiechmann D. Lingual technique--patients' characteristics, motivation and acceptance. Interpretation of a retrospective survey. J Orofac Orthop. 2002 May;63(3):227-33. doi: 10.1007/s00056-002-0124-3. English, German.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 12132310 (View on PubMed)

Jacobs C, Gebhardt PF, Jacobs V, Hechtner M, Meila D, Wehrbein H. Root resorption, treatment time and extraction rate during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating and conventional brackets. Head Face Med. 2014 Jan 23;10:2. doi: 10.1186/1746-160X-10-2.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 24456620 (View on PubMed)

Khattab TZ, Farah H, Al-Sabbagh R, Hajeer MY, Haj-Hamed Y. Speech performance and oral impairments with lingual and labial orthodontic appliances in the first stage of fixed treatment. Angle Orthod. 2013 May;83(3):519-26. doi: 10.2319/073112-619.1. Epub 2012 Oct 18.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 23075062 (View on PubMed)

Klang E, Beyling F, Knosel M, Wiechmann D. Quality of occlusal outcome following space closure in cases of lower second premolar aplasia using lingual orthodontic molar mesialization without maxillary counterbalancing extraction. Head Face Med. 2018 Sep 24;14(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s13005-018-0176-2.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 30249268 (View on PubMed)

Pauls AH. Therapeutic accuracy of individualized brackets in lingual orthodontics. J Orofac Orthop. 2010 Sep;71(5):348-61. doi: 10.1007/s00056-010-1027-3. Epub 2010 Oct 21. English, German.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 20963544 (View on PubMed)

Pauwels R. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial imaging: dose matters. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2015 Jul;165(1-4):156-61. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncv057. Epub 2015 Mar 23.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 25805884 (View on PubMed)

Tian YL, Liu F, Sun HJ, Lv P, Cao YM, Yu M, Yue Y. Alveolar bone thickness around maxillary central incisors of different inclination assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod. 2015 Sep;45(5):245-52. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2015.45.5.245. Epub 2015 Sep 23.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 26445719 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

UDDS-Ortho-04-2018

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id