NCT05915273

Relapse and Failure Rates Between CAD/CAM and Conventional Fixed Retainers

Relapse and Failure Rates Between CAD/CAM and Conventional Fixed Retainers: A 2-year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Study type: Interventional
• Enrollment: 43 (actual)
• Sponsor: Nourhan M.Aly · Academic / Other
• Sex: All
• Age: 13 Years
• Healthy volunteers: Not accepted

Summary

The aim of this study was to compare the differences in relapse and failure rates in patients treated with fixed retainers (FRs) using Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing technology, lab-based technique, and chairside method.

Conditions

• Relapse

Interventions

Type	Name	Description
OTHER	Computer Aided Design/ Computer Aided Manufacturing Retainers	Custom-bent fixed retainer wires from an in-office CAD/CAM system with FixR software and the BenderI machine (YOAT Corporation, Lynwood, WA). Dentaflex wires- round, 0.5mm in diameter, three-stranded Stainless Steel (Dentaurum GmbH \& Co., Ispringen, Germany)- were used for the CAD/CAM group
OTHER	Lab-based Retainers	The lab group used the same type of wire as the CAD/CAM group but was manually bent by a lab technician
OTHER	Chairside Retainers	The chairside group used three-stranded Stainless Steel, 0.974mm x 0.402 mm, flexible Ortho-FlexTech wires (Reliance, Itasca, IL)

Timeline

• Start date: 2019-09-01
• Primary completion: 2022-09-01
• Completion: 2022-09-30
• First posted: 2023-06-22
• Last updated: 2023-06-22

Locations

1 site across 1 country: United States