Department of Preventive Dentistry, Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
Department of Preventive Dentistry, Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020 May;157(5):594-601. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.01.004.
The objective of this prospective randomized clinical trial was to investigate the relationship between clear aligner (CA) therapy and the development of white spot lesions and compare it with orthodontic fixed appliance (FA) therapy.
This was a prospective randomized clinical trial. The setting was the postgraduate orthodontic clinic at Jordan University of Science and Technology. A total of 49 patients (39 female, 10 male; mean age ± standard deviation, 21.25 ± 3 years) who required orthodontic treatment with either FAs or CAs were randomly allocated into 1 of 2 study groups. Eligibility criteria included healthy patients of both sexes (age range 17-24 years), Class I malocclusion with mild-to-moderate crowding (≤5 mm), nonextraction treatment plan, and optimum oral hygiene before treatment as determined by clinical examination. The participants were randomly assigned to a study group according to a simple randomization method using a coin toss by the patient; the text or tail side of the coin indicated treatment with CA (group 1), and the head side of the coin indicated orthodontic treatment with FA (group 2). Blinding was applicable for outcome assessment only. CA therapy was performed for group 1 and FA for group 2. Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) images were taken before treatment (T) and 3 months later (T). The QLF images were then analyzed to assess the research outcomes. The main outcome was the mean amount of fluorescence loss (ΔF). Number of newly developed lesions, deepest point in the lesion (ΔF), lesion area (pixels), and plaque surface area (ΔR) were measured as secondary outcomes. Descriptive statistics and comparison within and between groups were calculated.
In total, 42 of the 49 participants recruited completed the study (19 in the CA group and 23 in the FA group). The mean amount of fluorescence loss was 0.4% for the CA group (P = 0.283) and 1.2% for the FA group (P = 0.013). The difference between the 2 groups was significant (confidence interval [CI], -1.8 to -0.4; P = 0.002). The mean increase in lesion area was 82.2 pixels for the CA group (P <0.001) and 9.3 pixels for the FA group (P = 0.225). The difference between the 2 groups was significant (CI, -117 to -75.0; P <0.001). ΔR was 1.2% for the CA group and 10.9% for the FA group (CI, 6.847-12.479; P <0.001). The number of newly developed lesions in the CA group was 6 lesions/patient and 8.25 in the FA group (P = 0.039). No serious harm on the oral health of the participants in the 2 study groups was observed other than mild gingivitis associated with plaque accumulation. No serious harm was reported by any of the participants.
Orthodontic treatment with CAs and FAs caused enamel demineralization. The CA group developed larger but shallower white spot lesions, whereas the FA group developed more new lesions with greater severity, but they were smaller in area. More plaque accumulation was found in the FA group compared with the CA group.
NCT04107012.
The protocol was published after trial commencement.
本前瞻性随机临床试验的目的是研究透明牙套(CA)治疗与釉质脱矿之间的关系,并与正畸固定矫治器(FA)治疗进行比较。
这是一项前瞻性随机临床试验。该试验地点为约旦科技大学的研究生正畸诊所。共有 49 名患者(39 名女性,10 名男性;平均年龄±标准差,21.25±3 岁)需要接受 FA 或 CA 正畸治疗,他们被随机分配到 2 个研究组中的 1 个。纳入标准包括:健康的男女患者(年龄 17-24 岁)、轻度至中度拥挤的 I 类错(≤5mm)、非拔牙治疗计划以及治疗前临床检查确定的最佳口腔卫生条件。参与者根据硬币投掷法随机分配到研究组,硬币的正面或反面表示使用 CA(组 1)治疗,硬币的头部表示使用 FA 进行正畸治疗(组 2)。仅对结果评估进行盲法。对组 1 进行 CA 治疗,对组 2 进行 FA 治疗。在治疗前(T)和 3 个月后(T)拍摄定量光诱导荧光(QLF)图像。然后分析 QLF 图像以评估研究结果。主要结果是荧光损失的平均量(ΔF)。还测量了新出现的病变数量、病变最深点(ΔF)、病变面积(像素)和菌斑表面积(ΔR)作为次要结果。计算了描述性统计和组内及组间比较。
共有 49 名参与者中的 42 名完成了研究(CA 组 19 名,FA 组 23 名)。CA 组的荧光损失平均值为 0.4%(P=0.283),FA 组为 1.2%(P=0.013)。两组之间的差异具有统计学意义(置信区间[CI],-1.8 至-0.4;P=0.002)。CA 组病变面积平均增加 82.2 像素(P<0.001),FA 组增加 9.3 像素(P=0.225)。两组之间的差异具有统计学意义(CI,-117 至-75.0;P<0.001)。CA 组的 ΔR 为 1.2%,FA 组为 10.9%(CI,6.847-12.479;P<0.001)。CA 组新出现的病变数量为 6 个/患者,FA 组为 8.25 个(P=0.039)。在 2 个研究组中,除了与菌斑积累相关的轻度牙龈炎外,参与者的口腔健康均未受到其他严重损害。没有参与者报告任何严重的不良反应。
使用 CA 和 FA 的正畸治疗会导致釉质脱矿。CA 组形成的釉质脱矿斑较大但较浅,而 FA 组形成的新病变数量更多,程度更严重,但面积较小。与 CA 组相比,FA 组发现更多的菌斑堆积。
NCT04107012。
该方案在试验开始后公布。