Background: To compare the efficacy of McLaughlin Bennett Trevisi (MBT) appliance and Clear Aligner Therapy (CAT) among nonextraction Class I crowding cases.
Methods: The study sample (60 patients) was allotted into two equal groups (30 patients each) using block randomization wherein Group 1: treated with 0.018" MBT appliance and Group 2: treated with CAT for correction of malocclusion. At the end of treatment (T1), treatment duration, chairside time, laboratory time, number, and type of appointments were noted from treatment record cards. For comparing the acceptability among patients treated with both modalities at T1, the patients were interviewed regarding the comfort and ease of using an appliance with a questionnaire-based survey.
Results: The median number of nonscheduled/emergency and finishing stage appointments was significantly higher in Group 1 compared to Group 2 (P-value <0.001). The median duration of treatment at the scheduled, finishing, and overall appointments, was significantly higher in Group 1 compared to Group 2 (P-value <0.001). The median chairside time of all appointments was significantly higher in Group 1 compared to Group 2 (P-value <0.001). The experience with treatment and overall acceptability was significantly higher in Group 2 compared to Group 1 (P-value <0.001). However, mean laboratory time per aligner fabrication in Group 2 was 30.26 ± 3.45 min against no laboratory time consumed in Group 1.
Conclusions: CAT significantly reduces treatment duration, chairside time, number of nonscheduled/emergency, and finishing stage appointments in nonextraction Class I crowding cases. Prospective studies with 3D aligner systems are recommended to add further evidence in this regard.
Clinical trials registry-india registration no: CTRI/2018/04/013301.
Keywords: Acceptability; Chairside time; Clear aligner therapy; MBT appliance; Treatment duration.
© 2021 Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services. Published by Elsevier, a division of RELX India Pvt. Ltd.