Effect of Different Fixed Lingual Retainers on Tooth Stability

NCT ID: NCT06284499

Last Updated: 2024-02-29

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

WITHDRAWN

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2020-01-16

Study Completion Date

2023-10-13

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of different fixed lingual retainers (LRs) on tooth stability after orthodontic treatment using a Periotest® device.

Materials and methods: A total of 82 patients (43 females and 39 males; mean age = 18.61 ± 3.71 years) with no missing teeth in the lower inter-canine region were treated with fixed orthodontic mechanics. At the completion of the orthodontic treatment, each patient was fitted with either Ortho FlexTech (Reliance; Group I), dead soft 8-braided (Bond-A-Braid, Reliance; Group II), or 5-stranded (PentaOne, Masel; Group III) LR wire. A control group consisting of people with a healthy periodontal condition and no bone loss was included (Control; Group C). The mobility of the lower anterior teeth on the right and left sides was measured using a Periotest® device before (T0), immediately after (T1), and 10 months after (T2) the application of the LR. Statistical analyses were performed using one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc LSD, repeated ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test, and Pearson χ2 tests.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Effect of Lingual Retainers on Tooth Stability

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

CASE_CROSSOVER

Study Time Perspective

PROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Group 1

Group 1 (n = 31), which contained patients fitted with 0.038 × 0.016" stainless steel wire (Ortho FlexTech® chain, Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, IL, USA)

measuring tooth stability after orthodontic treatment using a Periotest® device.

Intervention Type OTHER

The tooth mobility was determined by taking three repeat measurements from each tooth and calculating the average of these measurements, using a Periotest® device.

Group 2

Group 2 (n = 23), which contained patients fitted with 0.010 × 0.026" 8-braided dead soft wire (Bond-A-Braid,Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, IL, USA)

measuring tooth stability after orthodontic treatment using a Periotest® device.

Intervention Type OTHER

The tooth mobility was determined by taking three repeat measurements from each tooth and calculating the average of these measurements, using a Periotest® device.

Group 3

Group 3 (n = 28), which contained patients fitted with 0.0215" 5-stranded stainless steel wire (Penta-One®, Masel Orthodontics, Carlsbad, CA, USA)

measuring tooth stability after orthodontic treatment using a Periotest® device.

Intervention Type OTHER

The tooth mobility was determined by taking three repeat measurements from each tooth and calculating the average of these measurements, using a Periotest® device.

Control group

Control group (n = 20), which contained individuals who had not received any orthodontic treatment

measuring tooth stability after orthodontic treatment using a Periotest® device.

Intervention Type OTHER

The tooth mobility was determined by taking three repeat measurements from each tooth and calculating the average of these measurements, using a Periotest® device.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

measuring tooth stability after orthodontic treatment using a Periotest® device.

The tooth mobility was determined by taking three repeat measurements from each tooth and calculating the average of these measurements, using a Periotest® device.

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Successful completion of orthodontic treatment with optimum oral hygiene
* A duration of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances of more than 12 months
* No missing teeth, restorations, or morphological crown anomalies
* No radiological alveolar bone loss in the mandibular inter-canine region.

Exclusion Criteria

* Individuals with periodontal problems, such as gingival bleeding and recession, parafunctional habits (e.g., clenching and grinding),
* Any radiological pathology around the lower anterior teeth
Minimum Eligible Age

14 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

20 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Mustafa Kemal University

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Osman Fatih Arpag

associate professor

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Faculty of Dentistry

Hatay, , Turkey (Türkiye)

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Turkey (Türkiye)

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Littlewood SJ, Kandasamy S, Huang G. Retention and relapse in clinical practice. Aust Dent J. 2017 Mar;62 Suppl 1:51-57. doi: 10.1111/adj.12475.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 28297088 (View on PubMed)

Bishara SE, Treder JE, Damon P, Olsen M. Changes in the dental arches and dentition between 25 and 45 years of age. Angle Orthod. 1996;66(6):417-22. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1996)0662.3.CO;2.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 8974177 (View on PubMed)

Johnston CD, Littlewood SJ. Retention in orthodontics. Br Dent J. 2015 Feb 16;218(3):119-22. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.47.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25686428 (View on PubMed)

Golshah A, Feyli SA. Bond Strength and Deflection of Four Types of Bonded Lingual Retainers. Int J Dent. 2022 Feb 24;2022:1707520. doi: 10.1155/2022/1707520. eCollection 2022.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 35251180 (View on PubMed)

Kucera J, Marek I, Littlewood SJ. The effect of different bonded retainer wires on tooth mobility immediately after orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 2022 Mar 30;44(2):178-186. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjab038.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 34374751 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

26308819120

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.