NCT05458583

Brief Summary

The aim of this study was to evaluate fixed retainers, bonded with either direct or indirect techniques using one- or two-step adhesives, in terms of periodontal status and failure rates.

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
100

participants targeted

Target at P50-P75 for not_applicable

Timeline
Completed

Started Feb 2021

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Start

First participant enrolled

February 3, 2021

Completed
29 days until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

March 4, 2021

Completed
12 months until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

March 1, 2022

Completed
4 months until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

June 28, 2022

Completed
16 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

July 14, 2022

Completed
Last Updated

July 26, 2022

Status Verified

July 1, 2022

Enrollment Period

29 days

First QC Date

June 28, 2022

Last Update Submit

July 21, 2022

Conditions

Keywords

failure rateperiodontal statusretainer

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (9)

  • Plaque index measurements

    Plaque index was scored by a specialized periodontist on the mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual sides of each tooth at the bonding session based on the following scale: 0 (no plaque), 1 (a film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent area of the tooth), 2 (moderate accumulation of soft deposits within the gingival pocket, or on the tooth and gingival margin which can be seen with the naked eye) and 3 (abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or on the tooth and gingival margin). All measurements were performed using acrylic stents to ensure reproducible placement of the periodontal probe (PCP 15 UNC, Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL).

    at the bonding session

  • Plaque index measurements

    Plaque index (PI) was scored by a specialized periodontist on the mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual sides of each tooth at 6 months after bonding based on the following scale: 0 (no plaque), 1 (a film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent area of the tooth), 2 (moderate accumulation of soft deposits within the gingival pocket, or on the tooth and gingival margin which can be seen with the naked eye) and 3 (abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or on the tooth and gingival margin). All measurements were performed using acrylic stents to ensure reproducible placement of the periodontal probe (PCP 15 UNC, Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL).

    6 months (T1) after bonding

  • Plaque index measurements

    Plaque index was scored by a specialized periodontist on the mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual sides of each tooth at 12 months after bonding based on the following scale: 0 (no plaque), 1 (a film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent area of the tooth), 2 (moderate accumulation of soft deposits within the gingival pocket, or on the tooth and gingival margin which can be seen with the naked eye) and 3 (abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or on the tooth and gingival margin). All measurements were performed using acrylic stents to ensure reproducible placement of the periodontal probe (PCP 15 UNC, Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL).

    12 months (T2) after bonding

  • Gingival index measurements

    Gingival index was scored by a specialized periodontist on the mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual sides of each tooth at bonding session based on the following scale: 0 (absence of inflammation), 1 (mild inflammation), 2 (moderate inflammation) and 3 (severe inflammation). All measurements were performed using acrylic stents to ensure reproducible placement of the periodontal probe (PCP 15 UNC, Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL).

    at the bonding session

  • Gingival index measurements

    Gingival index was scored by a specialized periodontist on the mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual sides of each tooth at 6 months after bonding based on the following scale: 0 (absence of inflammation), 1 (mild inflammation), 2 (moderate inflammation) and 3 (severe inflammation). All measurements were performed using acrylic stents to ensure reproducible placement of the periodontal probe (PCP 15 UNC, Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL).

    6 months (T1) after bonding

  • Gingival index measurements

    Gingival index was scored by a specialized periodontist on the mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual sides of each tooth at 12 months after bonding based on the following scale: 0 (absence of inflammation), 1 (mild inflammation), 2 (moderate inflammation) and 3 (severe inflammation). All measurements were performed using acrylic stents to ensure reproducible placement of the periodontal probe (PCP 15 UNC, Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL).

    12 months (T2) after bonding

  • Calculus index measurements

    Calculus index was scored by a specialized periodontist on the mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual sides of each tooth at bonding session based on the following scale: 0 (no calculus present), 1 (supragingival calculus covering not more than one third of the exposed tooth surface), 2 (supragingival calculus covering more than one third but not more than two thirds of the exposed tooth surface or the presence of individual flecks of subgingival calculus around the cervical portion of the tooth or both) and 3 (supragingival calculus covering more than two thirds of the exposed tooth surface or a continuous heavy band of subgingival calculus around the cervical portion of the tooth or both). All measurements were performed using acrylic stents to ensure reproducible placement of the periodontal probe (PCP 15 UNC, Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL).

    at bonding session

  • Calculus index measurements

    Calculus index was scored by a specialized periodontist on the mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual sides of each tooth at 6 months after bonding based on the following scale: 0 (no calculus present), 1 (supragingival calculus covering not more than one third of the exposed tooth surface), 2 (supragingival calculus covering more than one third but not more than two thirds of the exposed tooth surface or the presence of individual flecks of subgingival calculus around the cervical portion of the tooth or both) and 3 (supragingival calculus covering more than two thirds of the exposed tooth surface or a continuous heavy band of subgingival calculus around the cervical portion of the tooth or both). All measurements were performed using acrylic stents to ensure reproducible placement of the periodontal probe (PCP 15 UNC, Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL)

    6 months after bonding

  • Calculus index measurements

    Calculus index was scored by a specialized periodontist on the mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual sides of each tooth at 12 months after bonding based on the following scale: 0 (no calculus present), 1 (supragingival calculus covering not more than one third of the exposed tooth surface), 2 (supragingival calculus covering more than one third but not more than two thirds of the exposed tooth surface or the presence of individual flecks of subgingival calculus around the cervical portion of the tooth or both) and 3 (supragingival calculus covering more than two thirds of the exposed tooth surface or a continuous heavy band of subgingival calculus around the cervical portion of the tooth or both). All measurements were performed using acrylic stents to ensure reproducible placement of the periodontal probe (PCP 15 UNC, Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL)

    12 months after bonding

Secondary Outcomes (1)

  • Failure rate

    during 1-year follow-up

Study Arms (4)

Direct bonding with conventional adhesive

OTHER

The fixed retainer was applied with direct bonding technique using two-step (conventional) adhesive

Procedure: Baseline periodontal measurements (T0)Procedure: Periodontal measurements (T1)Procedure: Periodontal measurements (T2)Procedure: Retainer failure rates

Direct bonding with one-step adhesive

OTHER

The fixed retainer was applied with direct bonding technique using one-step adhesive

Procedure: Baseline periodontal measurements (T0)Procedure: Periodontal measurements (T1)Procedure: Periodontal measurements (T2)Procedure: Retainer failure rates

Indirect bonding with conventional adhesive

OTHER

The fixed retainer was applied with indirect bonding technique using two-step (conventional) adhesive

Procedure: Baseline periodontal measurements (T0)Procedure: Periodontal measurements (T1)Procedure: Periodontal measurements (T2)Procedure: Retainer failure rates

Indirect bonding with one-step adhesive

OTHER

The fixed retainer was applied with indirect bonding technique using one-step adhesive

Procedure: Baseline periodontal measurements (T0)Procedure: Periodontal measurements (T1)Procedure: Periodontal measurements (T2)Procedure: Retainer failure rates

Interventions

Periodontal measurements including plaque index, gingival index and calculus index were recorded at the bonding session.

Direct bonding with conventional adhesiveDirect bonding with one-step adhesiveIndirect bonding with conventional adhesiveIndirect bonding with one-step adhesive

Periodontal measurements including plaque index, gingival index and calculus index were recorded at the 6 months after bonding.

Direct bonding with conventional adhesiveDirect bonding with one-step adhesiveIndirect bonding with conventional adhesiveIndirect bonding with one-step adhesive

Periodontal measurements including plaque index, gingival index and calculus index were recorded at the 12 months after bonding.

Direct bonding with conventional adhesiveDirect bonding with one-step adhesiveIndirect bonding with conventional adhesiveIndirect bonding with one-step adhesive

A retainer with at least one composite pad detachment was considered to be a failure during 1-year follow-up.

Direct bonding with conventional adhesiveDirect bonding with one-step adhesiveIndirect bonding with conventional adhesiveIndirect bonding with one-step adhesive

Eligibility Criteria

Sexall
Healthy VolunteersYes
Age GroupsChild (0-17), Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

  • Good treatment outcomes
  • good oral hygiene
  • No systemic or periodontal problems
  • No extraction or missing anterior teeth and restorations

You may not qualify if:

  • \- Patients unwilling to wear a fixed retainer

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

Pamukkale University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Orthodontics

Denizli, 20160, Turkey (Türkiye)

Location

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
DOUBLE
Who Masked
INVESTIGATOR, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
Masking Details
The investigator who performed the assessment of the periodontal status was blinded to study groups. Moreover, the person performing data entry and the statistician was blinded to the study groups.
Purpose
OTHER
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Assistant Professor

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

June 28, 2022

First Posted

July 14, 2022

Study Start

February 3, 2021

Primary Completion

March 4, 2021

Study Completion

March 1, 2022

Last Updated

July 26, 2022

Record last verified: 2022-07

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will not share

Locations