FindTrial
Sign In

A comparison of clinical efficiency of nanocomposite and conventional composite used for bonding lower fixed retainers.

A Comparative evaluation of survival rates of Mandibular Fixed Lingual Retainers, Bonded with TiO2 Nanoparticle containing Composite and Conventional Composite â?? A Randomized Controlled Trial

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2021/11/038102
Enrollment
40
Registered
2021-11-17
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2022-02-21

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: K089- Disorder of teeth and supporting structures, unspecified

Interventions

Intervention1: Nanoparticle containing composite: 1% TiO2 Nanoparticle containing composite Control Intervention1: Conventional composite as adhesive: Transbond XT Conventional composite

Sponsors

Dr Shravanthi M N
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Adult patients visiting the department for orthodontic treatment, and have undergone debonding and indicated for fixed retention in the mandibular arch.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Patients with chronic periodontal diseases Missing mandibular anterior teeth

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
To evaluate survival rate of mandibular fixed lingual retainersTimepoint: at 1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th month of retention period—

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
To evaluate periodontal health status of mandibular fixed lingual retainersTimepoint: at 1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th month of retention period—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDr Shravanthi M N

Dayananda Sagar College of Dental Sciences

gauthamkalladka@gmail.com7204638335

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026