Dataset Information

Comparison of multistranded wire and fiber-reinforced composite retainers effects on periodontium: A randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Fixed orthodontic retainers are very important for treatment stability; however, adverse effects on the health of periodontium can be caused as a result of deposition of plaque and calculus.

Objectives

To compare and determine the effects of two mandibular fixed lingual retainers on the periodontal status, and to test the null hypothesis that there would be no significant difference on the periodontium health between the patients using fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) or multistranded wire (MSW) fixed retainers.

Methods

A total of 60 subjects were recruited, out of which 6 were excluded and 2 dropped out during the study. Hence, 52 subjects with mean age of 21.5 ± 3.6 years were included in the study. The sample was composed by 8 males (15.4%) and 44 females (84.6%). The participants were randomly divided into two groups: Group 1 received fiber-reinforced composite retainer, while Group 2 received multistranded wire retainer. After insertion, plaque index, calculus index, gingival index and bleeding on probing were compared, after three months (T1), six months (T2), nine months (T3) and twelve months (T4), using Mann-Whitney test with p-value ≤ 0.05 as significant.

Results

It could be seen that the health of periodontium deteriorated with the passage of time from T1 to T4 in both group of retainers. However, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups (p> 0.05).

Conclusion

The results of the study indicate that there was no significant difference on the health of periodontium between the patients with FRC and MSW fixed retainers, hence, the null hypothesis was accepted.

SUBMITTER: Nagani NI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10069746 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of multistranded wire and fiber-reinforced composite retainers effects on periodontium: A randomized clinical trial.

Nagani Nasreen Iqbal NI Ahmed Imtiaz I

Dental press journal of orthodontics 20230403 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Fixed orthodontic retainers are very important for treatment stability; however, adverse effects on the health of periodontium can be caused as a result of deposition of plaque and calculus.<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare and determine the effects of two mandibular fixed lingual retainers on the periodontal status, and to test the null hypothesis that there would be no significant difference on the periodontium health between the patients using fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) ...[more]

PMID: 37018828

Similar Datasets

Project description:The primary aim of this two-arm parallel two-centre randomized controlled trial was to compare computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) versus conventional multistranded fixed retainers (FRs) in terms of stability over 6 months. Secondary outcomes were failure rates and patient satisfaction. Patients were randomized to CAD/CAM or conventional FRs in both arches, in 1:1 ratio and blocks of four. Allocation concealment was secured by using sequentially numbered envelopes. Patients were blinded. Retainers were bonded at the end of orthodontic treatment (T0), and patients were recalled after 1 (T1), 3 (T3), and 6 (T6) months. First-time retainer failures were recorded and digital impressions were taken. Arch widths and lengths, as well as Little's Irregularity Index (LII), were measured. Additionally, patients answered satisfaction questionnaires. Linear mixed models were applied for measurements and patient satisfaction. Survival analyses were estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves, along with Cox-regression modelling. One hundred and eighty-one patients were randomized (98 in Centre 1, and 83 in Centre 2): Ninety in the CAD/CAM group and 91 in the conventional group. Three subjects dropped out at baseline, as they did not attend any of the follow-up appointments.168 patients attended the T6 visit. There were no significant differences in arch dimensions between T0 and T6, whilst the LII was different only in the CAD/CAM group (mean difference: 0.2 mm; 95% confidence interval: 0.1 to 0.4; P < 0.001). Within 6 months, 39 upper retainers (19 out of 88 CAD/CAM and 20 out of 90 conventional retainers) and 52 lower retainers failed (26 out of 88 CAD/CAM and 26 out of 90 conventional retainers), with no significant difference between the survival of both types of retainers (hazard ratios conventional to CAD/CAM: upper arch: 0.99 [P =0.99], lower arch: 0.93 [P = 0.80]). There were no significant changes in patient satisfaction between the groups. No harms were observed. There were no clinically significant differences in LII, arch widths and lengths between CAD/CAM and conventional retainers after 6 months. There was no difference in failures and in patient satisfaction between both types of FRs. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04389879.

Project description:BackgroundCAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) fixed retainers (FRs) as an alternative to multistranded FRs to maintain orthodontic treatment outcome.ObjectivesThe primary aim was to compare CAD/CAM versus conventional multistranded FRs in terms of stability until 2 years. Secondary outcomes were failure rates, patient satisfaction, and cost-minimization.Trial design2-arm parallel, two-centre randomized controlled trial.MethodsPatients were randomized to CAD/CAM or conventional FRs in both arches, in a 1:1 ratio and blocks of four. Allocation concealment was secured by using sequentially numbered envelopes. Patients were blinded. FRs were bonded at the end of treatment, and patients were recalled after 12 and 24 months. First-time retainer failures were recorded and digital impressions were taken. Arch widths and lengths, as well as Little's Irregularity Index (LII), were measured. Additionally, patients answered satisfaction questionnaires. Linear mixed models were applied for measurements and patient satisfaction. Survival analyses were estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves, along with Cox-regression modelling. Cost-minimization analysis was undertaken.ResultsOne hundred and eighty-one patients were randomized (98 in Centre 1, and 83 in Centre 2): 90 in CAD/CAM and 91 in conventional group. One hundred and fifty three patients attended T24 follow-up. There were no significant differences in LII and arch dimensions between groups for failure-free patients. Within 24 months, 34% maxillary CAD/CAM FRs and 38% maxillary conventional FRs failed, along with 42% mandibular CAD/CAM FRs and 40% mandibular conventional FRs, with no significant difference in survival between groups (hazard ratios conventional to CAD/CAM: maxillary arch: 1.20 [P = 0.46], mandibular arch: 0.98 [P = 0.94]). There were no significant differences in patient satisfaction between groups. No harms were observed. Cost-minimization analysis showed that CAD/CAM FRs were slightly cheaper than conventional FRs.ConclusionsThere were no clinically significant differences in LII, arch widths, and lengths between CAD/CAM and conventional FRs after 24 months. There were no differences in failures and patient satisfaction between groups. CAD/CAM FRs were slightly cheaper than conventional FRs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04389879.

Dataset Information

Comparison of multistranded wire and fiber-reinforced composite retainers effects on periodontium: A randomized clinical trial.

Introduction

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of multistranded wire and fiber-reinforced composite retainers effects on periodontium: A randomized clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets