FindTrial
Sign In

Which Retainer Works Better After Braces? A Comparison of 3D-Printed and Traditional Types

COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF FAILURE RATE AND PERIODONTAL STATUS BETWEEN CAD/CAM GENERATED METAL FIXED LINGUAL BONDED RETAINER AND CONVENTIONAL FIXED LINGUAL BONDED RETAINER: A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL - nil

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2025/08/093936
Enrollment
50
Registered
2025-08-29
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-09-15

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

Conditions

Health Condition 1: M264- Malocclusion, unspecified

Interventions

Intervention1: CAD/CAM generated metal fixed lingual bonded retainer: The retainer will be made through laser sintered CAD/CAM generated stainless steel fixed bonded retainer will be fabricated and de

Sponsors

DR SHARANJI S V
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Age group above 16 years Completion of treatment with full fixed appliance with optimal overjet and overbite and Occlusions According to the six keys of Andrews Good general and oral health Patients treated by both extraction and non extraction protocols

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Treatment involving extraction of anterior teeth Conditions contraindicating fixed retainers Craniofacial or severe asymmetry syndromes Periodontally compromised patients Dental restorations or missing teeth on the anterior area Nickel allergy Smoking

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
1.Assessing the failure rate 2.Assessing the relapse rate Timepoint: 6 months—

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Assessment of Periodontal statusTimepoint:—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDRPAVITHRANAND A

Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences

pavithranandammayappan@igids.ac.in9443183590

Outcome results

None listed

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