An observational study in Root Resorption, Pain and Chewing Function, sponsored by Bezmialem Vakif University. Completed at 1 site in Turkey. Open to participants aged 12 Years to 29 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-12-05.
Sponsored by Bezmialem Vakif University · Observational
this study aimed to compare the effects of fixed orthodontic treatment and clear aligner therapy on root resorption, periodontal status, pain experience and chewing performance.
The aim of the study is to compare the potential side effects of fixed orthodontic treatment and clear aligner therapy. 27 individuals who were treated with clear aligners (20 Female, 7 Male; mean age: 22.57 ± 7.37) and 22 patients treated with braces (14 Female, 8 Male; mean age: 17.05 ± 4.51) formed the study group. The periodontal statuses of the patients(Probing depth, bleeding on probing, plaque index) were evaluated before treatment (T0), 3 months (T1) after, and at 6th month (T2) following the beginning of the treatment. The amount of root resorption in maxillary \& mandibular incisors was evaluated on periapical radiographies taken with the paralleling technique. Pain experience and chewing function were also recorded during treatment.
43 studies on the registry are indexed under Root Resorption; 9 are open to participants now.
Browse Root Resorption studies →Bezmialem Vakif University is the lead sponsor of 354 studies on the registry; 59 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
22 patients (14 females, 8 males; mean age: 17.05 ± 4.51 years) who underwent fixed orthodontic therapy were included in the fixed treatment group and 27 patients (20 females, 7 males; mean age: 22.57 ± 7.37 years) who underwent clear aligner therapy were included in the clear aligner group.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
The patients in this group were treated with conventional braces.The patients were treated with 0.018-inch slot metal Roth brackets. Pretreatment (T0) digital lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken from the patients to compare pretreatment characteristics between the groups.The digital periapical radiographs taken with the paralleling technique were obtained.The digital periapical radiographs taken with the paralleling technique were obtained from the maxillary and mandibular incisors at the beginning of the treatment (T0) and after 6 months (T2).Probing depth, plaque index, and bleeding on probing were record at T0, after 3 months of treatment(T1), and at 6months(T2) to evaluate the periodontal status of the patients.A 5-question survey was used to evaluate pain levels, and a 9-question survey was used to evaluate chewing performance.
Other: orthodontic metal bracket
The patients in this group were treated with clear aligners. Anterior teeth movement started from the first pair of aligners. Microfill and brace paste primers were used for bonding the attachments. Pretreatment (T0) digital lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken from the patients to compare pretreatment characteristics between the groups.The digital periapical radiographs taken with the paralleling technique were obtained.The digital periapical radiographs taken with the paralleling technique were obtained from the maxillary and mandibular incisors at the beginning of the treatment (T0) and after 6 months (T2).Probing depth, plaque index, and bleeding on probing were record at T0, after 3 months of treatment(T1), and at 6months(T2) to evaluate the periodontal status of the patients.A 5-question survey was used to evaluate pain levels, and a 9-question survey was used to evaluate chewing performance.
Other: clear aligners
The investigators measured pain and chewing performance at 8 time points during the first 6 months.
Conventional metal bracket.
Also known as: conventional bracket
The primary outcomes of the study were pain scores and chewing performance scores.
The Visual Analog Scale has been used to evaluate pain scores and chewing performance. According to this scale, high scores represent good masticatory performance and high pain. Low scores represent poor masticatory performance and low pain.
Time frame: 0-1 months
Plan to share: Undecided
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.