Skip to content

Comparison of efficiency and stability of Conventional retainer and CAD CAM retainers-a Randomized Control Trial.

Comparison of Efficiency and stability of conventional retainer and CAD-CAM retainers- a randomized control trial. - nil

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2025/03/081896
Enrollment
54
Registered
2025-03-07
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-04-07

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

Conditions

Health Condition 1: X- New Technology

Interventions

Intervention1: cad cam bar retainer, cad cam shell retainer: 6 months Control Intervention1: Conventional fixed lingual retainer: 6 months

Sponsors

M. Francis Xavier
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Good general health Age range 12 35 years old extraction and non extraction cases Completion of treatment with fixed appliance.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Patients with cleft lip and/or palate or any other craniofacial syndrome. Patients with compromised oral hygiene or periodontal disease. Patients who had orthognathic surgery, Lingual appliance treatments. Enamel hypoplasia, fluorosis, active caries, restorations, or fractures in the anterior teeth. Patients who had separate arch debondings with a difference of more than 2 months in-between jaws. Patients who were assigned to another retention protocol due to their initial malocclusion.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
littles irregularity index, inter canine width, periodontal indexTimepoint: 6 months

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
failure ratesTimepoint: 6 months

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactShifo Savio F

Saveetha Dental College and Hospital

srirengalakshmi.sdc@saveetha.com8867783552

Outcome results

None listed

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