Clinical trial NCT03850951: Comparison Between Lingual and Labial Fixed Orthodontic Appliances in the Treatment of Crowding Cases
Official title: 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
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: COMPLETED
Phase: NA
Conditions: Crowding
Keywords: Fixed appliances
labial appliances
lingual appliances
Lead sponsor: Damascus University
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2019-02-22
Enrollment: 44
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Maximum age (years): 25
Standard ages: ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Primary purpose: TREATMENT

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.

Eligibility criteria: 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.

Primary outcomes:
measure: Dentoalveolar changes after crowding treatment
timeFrame: Changes will be evaluated before and after crowding treatment which will take approximately 12 months
Secondary outcomes:
measure: ABO- Objective Grading System
timeFrame: After treatment completion, an average of 1 year
measure: Change in oral health related quality of life
timeFrame: (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.
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Damascus
country: Syrian Arab Republic
facility: Damascus University
Study officials:
affiliation: Faculty of Dentistry, Damascus University
name: Ahmad S Burhan, PhD.
role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
References:
citation: Fritz U, Diedrich P, Wiechmann D. Lingual technique--patients' characteristics, motivation and acceptance. Interpretation of a retrospective survey. J Orofac Orthop. 2002 May;63(3):227-33. doi: 10.1007/s00056-002-0124-3. English, German.
citation: Jacobs C, Gebhardt PF, Jacobs V, Hechtner M, Meila D, Wehrbein H. Root resorption, treatment time and extraction rate during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating and conventional brackets. Head Face Med. 2014 Jan 23;10:2. doi: 10.1186/1746-160X-10-2.
citation: Khattab TZ, Farah H, Al-Sabbagh R, Hajeer MY, Haj-Hamed Y. Speech performance and oral impairments with lingual and labial orthodontic appliances in the first stage of fixed treatment. Angle Orthod. 2013 May;83(3):519-26. doi: 10.2319/073112-619.1. Epub 2012 Oct 18.
citation: Klang E, Beyling F, Knosel M, Wiechmann D. Quality of occlusal outcome following space closure in cases of lower second premolar aplasia using lingual orthodontic molar mesialization without maxillary counterbalancing extraction. Head Face Med. 2018 Sep 24;14(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s13005-018-0176-2.
citation: Pauls AH. Therapeutic accuracy of individualized brackets in lingual orthodontics. J Orofac Orthop. 2010 Sep;71(5):348-61. doi: 10.1007/s00056-010-1027-3. Epub 2010 Oct 21. English, German.
citation: Pauwels R. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial imaging: dose matters. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2015 Jul;165(1-4):156-61. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncv057. Epub 2015 Mar 23.
citation: Tian YL, Liu F, Sun HJ, Lv P, Cao YM, Yu M, Yue Y. Alveolar bone thickness around maxillary central incisors of different inclination assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod. 2015 Sep;45(5):245-52. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2015.45.5.245. Epub 2015 Sep 23.