[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"orthodontic-relapse\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:orthodontic-relapse":26},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,3,0,[8,43,76],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":13,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":14,"healthyVolunteers":15,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":18,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":22,"briefSummary":24,"conditions":25,"keywords":28,"overallStatus":31,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":32,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":33,"startDateStruct":36,"completionDateStruct":38,"leadSponsor":40,"locationsCount":5},"100641902","effectiveness-patient-acceptance-and-cost-estimation-of-3d-printed-retainer-compared-to-hawley-retainer-in-expansion-case-a-randomized-controlled-trial-100641902",false,"NCT07659041","Effectiveness, Patient Acceptance, and Cost Estimation of 3D-printed Retainer Compared to Hawley Retainer in Expansion Case: a Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged 16 years or older at the time of debonding\n* Treatment plan of extraction or non-extraction followed by straight wire appliances in the upper arch only or both arches\n* Undergone expansion treatment in the upper arch causing an arch width increase of 3-10mm, either using a Quadhelix, expansion with archwires, or URA with midline screw\n* Had pretreatment dental cast\n* Had no chronic medical condition.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Cleft lip and palate\n* Chronic medical conditions\n* Broken teeth or bubbles on study model at site of measurement.",true,"ALL","16 Years",{"count":19,"type":20},28,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[23],"NA","Expansion of the arches is generally considered highly unstable and prone to relapse regardless of the type of expansion. Retention appliances play a vital role in preserving these changes. Hawley retainer users often avoid wearing them due to speech difficulties and less aesthetic appeal. They are also more prone to breakage, costlier, and require more labour. Despite the relatively recent introduction of 3D-printed retainers, they offer potential advantages in orthodontics, including the accuracy of digitally scanned images, reduced labour and material costs, and improved patient comfort. While 3D-printed retainers are quite new, most studies focus on laboratory testing of their mechanical properties, there is limited evidence directly comparing their effectiveness in retaining arch width increases, patient acceptance, and cost estimation. This knowledge gap creates uncertainty about the optimal choice of retainer for long-term stability, necessitating a comparative assessment of their performance. This study addresses this knowledge gap by evaluating the retention of arch width increases achieved using Hawley retainers versus 3D-printed retainers",[26,27],"Orthodontic Relapse","Retention in Orthodontic",[29,30],"orthodontic","3D printed retainer","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-06-15",{"date":34,"type":35},"2026-06-22","ACTUAL",{"date":37,"type":20},"2026-06",{"date":39,"type":20},"2027-12",{"name":41,"class":42},"National University of Malaysia","OTHER",{"id":44,"slug":45,"hasResults":11,"nctId":46,"briefTitle":47,"officialTitle":48,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":49,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":50,"maxAge":51,"enrollmentInfo":52,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":54,"briefSummary":55,"conditions":56,"keywords":58,"overallStatus":65,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":66,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":67,"startDateStruct":69,"completionDateStruct":71,"leadSponsor":73,"locationsCount":75},"100614504","effectiveness-of-gold-fixed-retainers-compared-to-conventional-stainless-steel-retainers-100614504","NCT07280455","Effectiveness of Gold Fixed Retainers Compared to Conventional Stainless Steel Retainers","The Effectiveness of Gold Fixed Retainers Compared to Conventional Stainless Steel Retainers: A Randomized Clinical Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age: 15-30 years.\n* Patients who have completed comprehensive orthodontic treatment ,with well-aligned mandibular anterior teeth (Little's Irregularity Index ≤ 0.5 mm) at debond; both extraction and non-extraction cases are eligible.\n* Patients with good oral hygiene and healthy periodontium at baseline; no previous bonded retainer.\n* All mandibular anterior teeth present (canine-canine), with sound lingual enamel suitable for bonding.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients with a history of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) or surgically assisted RME (SARME).\n* Patients with a cleft lip \u002F and or palate (craniofacial anomalies).\n* Patients with marked deep overbite and\u002For parafunctional habits (e.g., bruxism, clenching).\n* Patients with conditions precluding reliable bonding in the mandibular anterior segment (active caries, extensive restorations, enamel fractures) or missing teeth from canine to canine.\n* Patients with medical\u002Fperiodontal conditions likely to affect gingival health (e.g., active periodontitis, uncontrolled systemic disease).","15 Years","30 Years",{"count":53,"type":20},40,[23],"This randomized clinical trial will compare the effectiveness of a gold-plated multistranded mandibular fixed retainer versus a conventional multistranded stainless-steel fixed retainer in maintaining lower anterior tooth alignment after completion of orthodontic treatment. Eligible participants (post-orthodontic patients requiring mandibular fixed retention) will be allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a gold-plated 0.0195-inch multistranded retainer or an identical-gauge 0.0195-inch stainless-steel multistranded retainer. Participants will be followed for 6 months.\n\nThe primary outcome is post-treatment stability of mandibular anterior alignment, assessed by changes in Little's Irregularity Index over time, along with retainer failure outcomes (e.g., time to first failure and tooth-level failure events). Secondary outcomes include periodontal health indices and related clinical measures collected at baseline and follow-up visits.\n\nFor the microbiological assessment, plaque\u002Fbiofilm will be collected from the retainer using sterile swabs at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months to evaluate bacterial levels associated with each retainer material.",[57,26],"Orthodontic Retention Appliance",[59,60,61,62,63,64],"fixed retainer","gold-coated retainer wire","stainless steel retainer wire","Little's Irregularity Index","retainer failure","periodontal indices","RECRUITING","2025-12-11",{"date":68,"type":35},"2025-12-12",{"date":70,"type":35},"2025-11-01",{"date":72,"type":20},"2026-12",{"name":74,"class":42},"Noor Sattar Raheem",1,{"id":77,"slug":78,"hasResults":11,"nctId":79,"briefTitle":80,"officialTitle":81,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":82,"healthyVolunteers":15,"sex":16,"minAge":83,"maxAge":84,"enrollmentInfo":85,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":87,"briefSummary":88,"conditions":89,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":65,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":95,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":96,"startDateStruct":98,"completionDateStruct":100,"leadSponsor":102,"locationsCount":75},"100552706","retentive-capacity-of-bonded-retainer-vs-vacuum-formed-and-combined-bonded-vacuum-retainers-100552706","NCT06476574","Retentive Capacity of Bonded Retainer Vs Vacuum-formed and Combined Bonded-vacuum Retainers","Retentive Capacity of Bonded Retainer Versus Vacuum-formed and Combined Bonded-vacuum Retainers: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult patients\n* Finished non-extraction orthodontic treatment\n* Full set of permanent dentition (excluding third molars).\n* Good oral hygiene\n* No restorations on lower anterior teeth or morphologic crown anomalies.\n* Little's irregularity index score 0\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Systemic disease or drugs affecting periodontal health.\n* Smokers\n* Poor oral health that precludes orthodontic treatment (presence of caries, active white spots,or periodontal diseases)","18 Years","35 Years",{"count":86,"type":20},45,[23],"The main goal is to test the differences between the retentive capacity of fixed retainer, vacuum-formed retainer \\& combination of both; and recommend the most effective protocol for retention of lower incisors crowding treated by non-extraction treatment plan\n\nThe main question is: In patients with lower incisors crowding treated by non-extraction treatment plans, what is the difference in retentive capacity between fixed retainer, vacuum formed retainer and combined bonded and vacuum retainers in maintaining corrected lower anterior segment crowding? After enrolment, each participant will have the orthodontic appliance debonded, the adhesive remnant removed and the enamel surface polished. An alginate impression will be taken to be poured into a study model which will be scanned to obtain STL files for digital models. All patients will have periodontal charting and probing depths recorded for the lower anterior segment. According to the randomization, each patient will be assigned to a group to receive the retainer. All patients will be called for follow-up after 1 week, 1 and 3 months.",[90,91,26,92,93,94],"Orthodontic Retainer","Fixed Orthodontic Retainer","Essix Retainer","Vacuum-formed Retainer","Dual Retention Protocol","2024-06-25",{"date":97,"type":35},"2024-06-26",{"date":99,"type":35},"2023-09-29",{"date":101,"type":20},"2024-08",{"name":103,"class":42},"Cairo University"]