Predictability of Part-time Wearing of Removable Clear Aligner Therapy Versus Full Time

Malocclusion, Angle Class I Clinical Trial

Official title:

Predictability of Part-time Wearing of Removable Clear Aligner Therapy Versus Full Time

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT06253286
• Other study ID #: FUE.REC (24)/11-2020
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: November 1, 2020
• Est. completion date: December 1, 2023

Study information

• Verified date: February 2024
• Source: Future University in Egypt
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

14 Patients with mild to moderate crowding and spacing will be selected according to inclusion criteria. Treatment planning will be done on Maestro® software. An impression will be taken and scanned by an extra-oral scanner. The models will be 3D printed and aligner trays will be fabricated to be delivered on biweekly basis to be worn 16 hours per day for one group and 22 hours for the other group. Superimposition of the achieved clinical model over the predicted model will be done. Linear and angular measurements will be calculated for each tooth.

Description:

Clear removable retainers could be related to clear aligners. Wearing time of retainers has been suggested that it could be changed from full time to part-time during the night only. A similar approach could be done to determine the effect of wearing time of clear aligners on treatment outcome. The standard duration per day for wearing the appliance is 22 hours. However, is part-time wearing (16 hours) would have the same effect? Therefore, a randomized clinical trial is needed to compare the effect of partial wearing of the aligner versus full time. Moreover, studying the predictability and accuracy of treatment using Maestro software.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 14
• Est. completion date: December 1, 2023
• Est. primary completion date: May 1, 2022
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: N/A and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

1. Permeant dentition

2. Mild to moderate crowding and spacing in maxilla and mandible according to Little's Irregularity Index

3. Non-extraction cases

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Severe crowding and spacing

2. Systematic diseases

3. Compromised periodontal health

4. Craniofacial syndromes

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Malocclusion
• Malocclusion, Angle Class I

Intervention

Device:
• clear aligner treatment for orthodontics patients
patient are instructed to wear aligners

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Egypt	Future University in Egypt	Cairo	New Caro

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Future University in Egypt

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Egypt, 

References & Publications (22)

Alford TJ, Roberts WE, Hartsfield JK Jr, Eckert GJ, Snyder RJ. Clinical outcomes for patients finished with the SureSmile method compared with conventional fixed orthodontic therapy. Angle Orthod. 2011 May;81(3):383-8. doi: 10.2319/071810-413.1. Epub 2011 Jan 24. — View Citation

Brown MW, Koroluk L, Ko CC, Zhang K, Chen M, Nguyen T. Effectiveness and efficiency of a CAD/CAM orthodontic bracket system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015 Dec;148(6):1067-74. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.029. — View Citation

Buschang PH, Ross M, Shaw SG, Crosby D, Campbell PM. Predicted and actual end-of-treatment occlusion produced with aligner therapy. Angle Orthod. 2015 Sep;85(5):723-7. doi: 10.2319/043014-311.1. Epub 2014 Nov 5. — View Citation

Charalampakis O, Iliadi A, Ueno H, Oliver DR, Kim KB. Accuracy of clear aligners: A retrospective study of patients who needed refinement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Jul;154(1):47-54. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.11.028. — View Citation

Chisari JR, McGorray SP, Nair M, Wheeler TT. Variables affecting orthodontic tooth movement with clear aligners. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Apr;145(4 Suppl):S82-91. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.10.022. — View Citation

Djeu G, Shelton C, Maganzini A. Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Sep;128(3):292-8; discussion 298. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.06.002. — View Citation

Gill DS, Naini FB, Jones A, Tredwin CJ. Part-time versus full-time retainer wear following fixed appliance therapy: a randomized prospective controlled trial. World J Orthod. 2007 Fall;8(3):300-6. — View Citation

Grunheid T, Loh C, Larson BE. How accurate is Invisalign in nonextraction cases? Are predicted tooth positions achieved? Angle Orthod. 2017 Nov;87(6):809-815. doi: 10.2319/022717-147.1. Epub 2017 Jul 7. — View Citation

Izhar A, Singh G, Goyal V, Singh R, Gupta N, Pahuja P. Comparative Assessment of Clinical and Predicted Treatment Outcomes of Clear Aligner Treatment: An in Vivo Study. Turk J Orthod. 2019 Dec 1;32(4):229-235. doi: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2019.19019. eCollection 2019 Dec. — View Citation

Jacox LA, Mihas P, Cho C, Lin FC, Ko CC. Understanding technology adoption by orthodontists: A qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019 Mar;155(3):432-442. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.08.018. — View Citation

Kacer KA, Valiathan M, Narendran S, Hans MG. Retainer wear and compliance in the first 2 years after active orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Nov;138(5):592-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.12.027. — View Citation

Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Obrez A, Agran B. How well does Invisalign work? A prospective clinical study evaluating the efficacy of tooth movement with Invisalign. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Jan;135(1):27-35. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.018. — View Citation

Lombardo L, Arreghini A, Ramina F, Huanca Ghislanzoni LT, Siciliani G. Predictability of orthodontic movement with orthodontic aligners: a retrospective study. Prog Orthod. 2017 Nov 13;18(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s40510-017-0190-0. — View Citation

Melsen B. Northcroft lecture: how has the spectrum of orthodontics changed over the past decades? J Orthod. 2011 Jun;38(2):134-43; quiz 145. doi: 10.1179/14653121141362. — View Citation

Nahoum HI. Forces and moments generated by removable thermoplastic aligners. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Nov;146(5):545-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.08.006. Epub 2014 Oct 28. No abstract available. — View Citation

Papadimitriou A, Mousoulea S, Gkantidis N, Kloukos D. Clinical effectiveness of Invisalign(R) orthodontic treatment: a systematic review. Prog Orthod. 2018 Sep 28;19(1):37. doi: 10.1186/s40510-018-0235-z. — View Citation

Pratt MC, Kluemper GT, Lindstrom AF. Patient compliance with orthodontic retainers in the postretention phase. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Aug;140(2):196-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.02.035. — View Citation

Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL. Efficacy of clear aligners in controlling orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2015 Sep;85(5):881-9. doi: 10.2319/061614-436.1. Epub 2014 Nov 20. — View Citation

Simon M, Keilig L, Schwarze J, Jung BA, Bourauel C. Treatment outcome and efficacy of an aligner technique--regarding incisor torque, premolar derotation and molar distalization. BMC Oral Health. 2014 Jun 11;14:68. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-68. — View Citation

Thickett E, Power S. A randomized clinical trial of thermoplastic retainer wear. Eur J Orthod. 2010 Feb;32(1):1-5. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjp061. Epub 2009 Oct 14. — View Citation

Weir T. Clear aligners in orthodontic treatment. Aust Dent J. 2017 Mar;62 Suppl 1:58-62. doi: 10.1111/adj.12480. — View Citation

Zhang XJ, He L, Guo HM, Tian J, Bai YX, Li S. Integrated three-dimensional digital assessment of accuracy of anterior tooth movement using clear aligners. Korean J Orthod. 2015 Nov;45(6):275-81. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2015.45.6.275. Epub 2015 Nov 20. — View Citation

* Note: There are 22 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Linear Movement Discrepancies Between Digital Software Models and Clinical Models	Translation movements (mm) were compared for each tooth between predicted models on Software predicted models and actual clinical models for the study groups	an average of 1 year
Primary	Angular Movement Discrepancies Between Digital Software Models and Clinical Models	Translation movements (Degrees) were compared for each tooth between predicted models on Software predicted models and actual clinical models for the study groups	an average of 1 year