Skip to content

Comparison Between Lingual and Labial Fixed Orthodontic Appliances in the Treatment of Crowding Cases

Assessment of Dentoalveolar Changes Resulting From Orthodontic Treatment of Crowding With Fixed Lingual Orthodontic Appliances Versus Fixed Labial Orthodontic Appliances. 'A Clinical Randomized Controlled Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03850951
Enrollment
44
Registered
2019-02-22
Start date
2018-02-22
Completion date
2021-12-15
Last updated
2022-02-14

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

Conditions

Crowding

Keywords

Fixed appliances, labial appliances, lingual appliances

Brief summary

Patients who have moderate crowding that could be treated without extraction will be treated in this study using either lingual or labial fixed orthodontic appliances. All patients will receive a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan in two different times (T0: before treatment, T1: after treatment). The dentoalveolar changes will be assessed.

Detailed description

Lingual orthodontic appliances provide an ultimate esthetic solution for patients who do not want visible orthodontic appliances. Recently, lingual orthodontic treatment outcomes have become similar and comparable to those produced with labial orthodontic treatment. However, placement of orthodontic brackets on the lingual surfaces of teeth causes changes in their morphology, which results in articulation problems, chewing difficulties, tongue irritation and other impairments. In this respect, the main difference between the labial and lingual techniques is the distance between the point of application of the force that is transmitted through the bracket and the centre of resistance of the tooth. Consequently, the displacement and stress induced in bone by these two techniques will also differ, and these need to be evaluated so that useful comparisons can be made between these two techniques. Patients who have moderate crowding that could be treated without extraction will be treated in this study using either lingual or labial fixed orthodontic appliances. All patients will receive a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan in two different times (T0: before treatment, T1: after treatment). The dentoalveolar changes will be assessed.

Interventions

DEVICELingual appliances

Patients with moderate crowding will be treated without extraction using lingual appliances.

DEVICELabial appliances

Patients with moderate crowding will be treated without extraction using labial appliances.

Sponsors

Damascus University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 25 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Class I malocclusion. * Moderate crowding in the dental arch (3 to 5-mm tooth-size arch-length discrepancy).

Exclusion criteria

* Inappropriate oral hygiene and periodontal diseases. * Previous orthodontic treatment. * Craniofacial syndromes, cleft lip and/or palate (soft and/or hard). * Subject with systemic diseases.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Dentoalveolar changes after crowding treatmentChanges will be evaluated before and after crowding treatment which will take approximately 12 monthsDentoalveolar changes before and after crowding treatment will be evaluated using CBCT.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
ABO- Objective Grading SystemAfter treatment completion, an average of 1 yearObjective grading system phase III examination will be done to systematically grade post treatment records. The ABO-OGS contains eight criteria: alignment, marginal ridges, buccolingual inclination, occlusal relationships, occlusal contacts, overjet, interproximal contacts and root angulation. Patients will be deducted for any discrepancy from ideal as described by the ABO. Every case that loses 30 or fewer points generally receives a passing grade for the ABO phase III examination.
Change in oral health related quality of life(1) at the beginning of the treatment, (2) after week, (3) after 2 weeks, (4) after 4 weeks, (5) after 6 months, (6) after treatment completion, an average of 1 year.Patients in both groups will be given a questionnaire to be filled. The questionnaire to be used is called Oral-Health-Impact-Profile with 14 items (OHIP-14) which can be filled in 3 minutes. OHIP-14 includes a subjective evaluation of the individual's oral health, functional well being, emotional well being, expectations and satisfaction with care and sense of self.

Countries

Syria

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026