A randomized controlled trial comparing retainers in bimaxillary proclination cases

Maskim, Nurulhuda and Tahir, Norhidayah Nor Zahidah Mohd and Hassan, Wan Nurazreena Wan (2025) A randomized controlled trial comparing retainers in bimaxillary proclination cases. Clinical Oral Investigations, 29 (2). p. 117. ISSN 1432-6981, DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-025-06199-3.

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

IntroductionThere is currently no recommendation for retaining corrected bimaxillary proclination cases. This study aimed to compare retention protocols for maintaining stability of such cases.Materials and methodsIn this single-center, single-blinded parallel control trial, 27 participants were assigned to three groups using block randomization with a 1:1:1 allocation ratio; fixed bonded retention (FBR), vacuum-formed retention (VFR), and dual retention (DR) comprising both types. Data were collected every 3-months from debond (T0) for 12 months (T4). The primary outcomes measured changes in soft and dental tissue parameters on traced lateral cephalograms. Secondary outcomes included intra-arch changes and the oral health impact profile (OHIP-14M]). This trial was registered with Clinicaltrial.gov (NCT04578704).ResultsAt T4, the upper lip, lower lip, and upper incisors moved anteriorly (mean difference (MD) of 1.63 mm (SD 3.7), 0.48 mm (SD 1.1), and 0.54 mm (SD 0.97), respectively). The upper and lower incisors were proclined by 0.96 degrees (SD 2.1) and 1.11 degrees (SD 2.63), respectively. The interincisal angle was reduced by 0.56 degrees (SD 1.23). Only the upper incisor inclination (UII) change showed significant differences between groups (eta(2) = 0.296; p = 0.015). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that the FBR and VFR groups exhibited greater proclination than the DR group (UII, MD = 3.33 degrees and 3.22 degrees, respectively). No differences were observed in OHIP-14M] scores between the groups.ConclusionAll three retention protocols showed statistically small but clinically insignificant changes.Clinical relevanceDual retention offers better control in preventing upper incisor proclination in bimaxillary proclination cases.Trial registrationThis trial was registered with Clinicaltrial.gov (NCT04578704).

Item Type: Article
Funders: Dental Postgraduate Research Grant, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Malaya
Uncontrolled Keywords: Bimaxillary proclination; Stability; Retainers; Fixed bonded retainer; Vacuum formed retainer; Dual retention
Subjects: R Medicine > RK Dentistry
Divisions: Faculty of Dentistry > Department of Paediatric Dentistry & Orthodontics
Depositing User: Ms. Juhaida Abd Rahim
Date Deposited: 29 Apr 2025 07:52
Last Modified: 29 Apr 2025 07:52
URI: http://eprints.um.edu.my/id/eprint/47907

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item