Effectiveness, Patient Acceptance, and Cost Estimation of 3D-printed Retainer Compared to Hawley Retainer in Expansion Case: a Randomized Controlled Trial

Обзор

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

Подробное описание

Maxillary dentoalveolar expansion is a procedure to correct transverse discrepancies between the maxillary and mandibular arches by applying forces to widen the maxillary arch. This procedure is inherently unstable and is susceptible to relapse. While Hawley retainers (HR) have served as the established standard for retention after maxillary expansion, recent studies have shown that modified thermoforming retainers can be as effective as HR. The emergence of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) and three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has significantly streamlined fabricating appliances and prostheses. 3D printing material is more rigid, with superior compression and tensile strength. Thus, a normal shape 3D-printed retainer may be a viable choice for the retention of maxillary expansion. A recent systematic review highlighted a critical gap in knowledge regarding the long-term clinical efficacy and durability of 3D-printed retainers. Thus, the present study aimed to address this research gap by investigating the long-term clinical effectiveness, patient acceptance, and cost estimation of 3D-printed retainers in expansion cases. This study will be carried out as a multicentre prospective randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) conducted at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Malaya (UM), and Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM). Orthodontic patients who fulfil the inclusion criteria will be randomly allocated into the HR or 3D-printed retainer groups. Dental casts of patients will be measured at intercanine width (ICW), inter-premolar width (IPMW), inter-first molar mesiobuccal cusp width 1 (IFMW1), and inter-first molar distobuccal cusp width 2 (IFMW2) for both groups at debond(T0), 3(T1), 6(T2), and 12(T3). The outcome assessor and data analyst will be blinded to the retention method. The researcher will evaluate the patient's acceptance at T2 \& T3 and conduct a cost analysis at T1 post-debond. The findings of this study will contribute valuable data to the field of orthodontics, aiding clinicians in determining the most effective long-term retention strategy for patients who have undergone maxillary dentoalveolar expansion.

Вмешательства

• Устройство 3D printed retainer
  3D-printed retainer Using Nextdent Orthoflex resin Standard design of 3D printed retainer: * Monolithic design (no wires) * Thickness 0.8mm-1.0 mm * Fully cover the teeth and part of the gingiva (1-2mm) * Undercut block - 0.25-0.5mm
• Устройство Hawley retainer
  Hawley retainers have served as the established standard for retention after maxillary expansion. Standard design of Hawley Retainer: - Labial bow (0.8mm hard stainless steel) from canine to canine - Adam clasp on the molar (0.7mm hard stainless steel) - acrylic baseplate (2-3mm thickness) .

Первичные конечные точки

• Retention of the maxillary expansion [Срок оценки: 12 months]

Вторичные конечные точки (2)

• Patient acceptance [Срок оценки: 12 months]
• cost estimation [Срок оценки: 6 months]

Критерии участия

Критерии включения

• Patients aged 16 years or older at the time of debonding
• Treatment plan of extraction or non-extraction followed by straight wire appliances in the upper arch only or both arches
• 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
• Had pretreatment dental cast
• Had no chronic medical condition.

Критерии исключения

• Cleft lip and palate
• Chronic medical conditions
• Broken teeth or bubbles on study model at site of measurement.

Критерии приведены из реестра в оригинале (на английском). Окончательную оценку соответствия проводит исследовательский центр.

Здоровые добровольцы: Да

Дизайн исследования

Распределение

Рандомизированное

Модель

Параллельные группы

Маскирование

Простое слепое

Основная цель

Другое

Центры проведения

Малайзия · 3 центра

• National University Of Malaysia — Kuala Lumpur
• University Malaya — Kuala Lumpur
• University Teknologi Mara Selangor branch — Sungai Buloh

Публикации

• Firlej M, Zaborowicz K, Zaborowicz M, Firlej E, Domagala I, Pieniak D, Igielska-Kalwat J, Dmowski A, Biedziak B. Mechanical Properties of 3D Printed Orthodontic Retainers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 May 9;19(9):5775. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19095775. PMID 35565167
• Hichens L, Rowland H, Williams A, Hollinghurst S, Ewings P, Clark S, Ireland A, Sandy J. Cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction: Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers. Eur J Orthod. 2007 Aug;29(4):372-8. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjm039. PMID 17702797
• Naeem OA, Bencharit S, Yang IH, Stilianoudakis SC, Carrico C, Tufekci E. Comparison of 3-dimensional printing technologies on the precision, trueness, and accuracy of printed retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022 Apr;161(4):582-591. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.03.016. PMID 35337648
• Tsoukala E, Lyros I, Tsolakis AI, Maroulakos MP, Tsolakis IA. Direct 3D-Printed Orthodontic Retainers. A Systematic Review. Children (Basel). 2023 Apr 3;10(4):676. doi: 10.3390/children10040676. PMID 37189925
• Saw ZK, Yuen JJX, Ashari A, Ibrahim Bahemia F, Low YX, Nik Mustapha NM, Lau MN. Forward-backward translation, content validity, face validity, construct validity, criterion validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency of a questionnaire on patient acceptance of orthodontic retainer. PLoS One. 2025 Jan 3;20(1):e0314853. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314853. eCollection 2025. PMID 39752631
• Nakornnoi T, Bunjerdjin P, Santiwong P, Sipiyaruk K, Neoh SP, Chintavalakorn R. The Influence of Thickness on the Mechanical Behaviors of 3D Printing Resins for Orthodontic Retainers. Int J Biomater. 2024 Jun 25;2024:7398478. doi: 10.1155/2024/7398478. eCollection 2024. PMID 38957572
• Ashari A, Xian L, Syed Mohamed AMF, Wahab RMA, Kit YC, Tata MD, Sinnasamy S, Kuppusamy E. One-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers. Angle Orthod. 2022 Mar 1;92(2):197-203. doi: 10.2319/050921-363.1. PMID 34797378
• Ashari A, Nik Mustapha NM, Yuen JJX, Saw ZK, Lau MN, Xian L, Syed Mohamed AMF, Megat Abdul Wahab R, Yeoh CK, Deva Tata M, Sinnasamy S. A two-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: a multi-center randomized clinical trial. Prog Orthod. 2022 Aug 26;23(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s40510-022-00424-5. PMID 36018418

Идентификаторы

NCT: NCT07659041 · JEP 2025-630 · JEP 2025-630

Первоисточники (государственные реестры)

• ClinicalTrials.gov (NIH, США)

Открыть это исследование на ClinicalTrials.gov ↗