Effectiveness of CAD/CAM Titanium Fixed lingual Retainer Versus Conventional Fixed Retainer: RCT

Effectiveness of CAD/CAM Titanium Fixed lingual Retainer Versus Conventional Fixed Retainer (Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial)

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

PACTR

Registry ID

PACTR202310525946306

Enrollment

Registered

2023-10-12

Start date

2022-11-01

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2026-09-14

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

Conditions

Oral Health

Interventions

Titanium

Conventional Stainless Steel

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: - Completion of active orthodontic therapy involving both dental arches - Presence of six mandibular anterior teeth involving four incisors and two canines - Patients with sound normal enamel structure for mandibular anterior teeth score zero according to deans classification - Adequate oral hygiene and treatment compliance less than score two

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: - Patients with cleft lip and/or palate or craniofacial syndrome(all types of cleft according to Morian classification). - History of systemic disease that affect bone metabolism. - Lingual appliance orthodontic treatments. - Enamel hypoplasia or fluorosis (from score 0.4 to 4.0) . - Active caries, restorations ,fractures or periodontal disease in the anterior teeth. - Orthodontically re-treated patients.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Alignment Stability	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Accuracy by Superimposition	—

Countries

Egypt

Contacts

Public ContactElsayedamr Basma

Patient Information Manager

elsayedamr@yahoo.com00201223106023

Outcome results

None listed

Source: PACTR (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Sep 19, 2026