View clinical trials related to Orthodontic Retainers.
Filter by:The biggest problem in the orthodontic process is the pain and the long duration of treatment, which is also generally divided into 2 phases, namely the orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) and the retention phase. In recent decades, low-level-laser therapy has gained attention because it is non-invasive, inexpensive, relieves pain and has no significant adverse effects. Low-level-laser therapy (LLLT) has been proved to effectively induce and accelerate the remodeling process of alveolar bone by increasing the number of osteoblasts and osteoclasts. Therefore, LLLT is widely used in OTM to accelerate tooth displacement, but there are few studies and limited evidence on the stability whether it can strengthen and shorten the retention stage to avoid relapse. Thus, the purpose of this study is to investigate the stability after orthodontic treatment by observing the substantial influence of low-level-laser as during retention phase. Research Question(s) 1. Does the low-level laser treatment can enhance stability and shorten retention time after orthodontic treatment or not will be demonstrated through 3 aspects： 1. The Incisor Irregularities Index between laser and control group after application of LLLT at debond (0), 6 and 12 months of retention 2. The interarch dimension: intercanine width, intermolar width, interpremolar width, arch length between laser and control group after application of LLLT at debond (0), 6 and 12 months of retention 3. The overjet and overbite between laser and control group after application of LLLT at debond (0), 6 and 12 months of retention Objective General: The goal of this study is to investigate the stability in retention phase after application of LLLT during leveling and alignment with fixed appliances. Specific: 1. To compare the Incisor Irregularities Index between laser and control group after application of LLLT at debond (0), 6 and 12 months of retention 2. To compare the interarch dimension: intercanine width, intermolar width, interpremolar width, arch length between laser and control group after application of LLLT at debond (0), 6 and 12 months of retention To compare the overjet and overbite between laser and control group after application of LLLT at debond (0), 6 and 12 months of retention
Background: The aim of this study was to examine the effect of self-etch primer (SEP) application on the bond failure rate of a mandibular bonded lingual retainer over 24 months. Materials and Methods: After the removal of the orthodontic appliances, the lingual retainers, which were made of six-stranded stainless steel wire 0.0215 inches in diameter, wiil bent and bond onto the lingual surface of all mandibular anterior teeth. The study will performed using a split-mouth design. In the study group, the SEP will be administired to the teeth's lingual surfaces. In the control group, they will etch using 37% phosphoric etchant liquid gel. After etching, the primer wiil be applied. The adhesive resin was applied and the lingual retainer was fitted. The patients will be re-valuated over 24 months. The first bond failures and the amount of adhesive remaining on the tooth will be recorded as the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores. The chi-square test will be used to compare the bond failure rates and ARI scores between the groups. The survival rates of the retainers will be estimated using the Kaplan-Meier test. The significance level will P < 0.05.
This study will focus on the relapse of arch width in two types of retention regimes, which are modified vacuum-formed retainers and Hawley type retainers in patients after fixed appliance treatment. This will subsequently be of valuable information for clinicians in choosing the appropriate type of retainers after removal of their fixed appliances. This is because the modified vacuum-formed retainers will be significantly cheaper, quicker and easier to fabricate.