Class II Division 1 MalocclusionNCT06566027
Activator vs the EF Class II Standard in the Treatment of Severe Overjet in Angle Class II Division 1 Malocclusion
A study testing Skeletal, dental, soft tissue index changes in Activator group in people with Class II Division 1 Malocclusion, run by Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy at 1 site in Vietnam.
Trial summary
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of reducing severe overjet in Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion between Activator and the EF (Functional Education) class II standard in treating. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Class II Division 1 Malocclusion
- What is being tested?
- Skeletal, dental, soft tissue index changes in Activator group
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 60 participants
- Where
- 1 siteVietnam
- Study dates
- 1 Apr 2023to 1 Jun 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Vietnamese children between the ages of 7 and 12 with central incisors erupted
- Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion (ANB angle ≥ 4°, basic normal maxillary status)
- Severe overjet ≥ 6mm
- The developmental stage (CS1-CS3)
- No previous orthodontic treatment
- Agreeing to engage in the study
Who cannot join
- The young with crossbite
- Severe crowding
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Vietnam1 site
Department of Orthodontics, Ho Chi Minh City Dental Hospital
Ho Chi Minh City
About this study
Official title: A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Activator Versus the EF (Functional Education) Class II Standard in the Treatment of Severe Overjet in Angle Class II Division 1 Malocclusion in Vietnamese Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of reducing severe overjet in Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion between Activator and the EF (Functional Education) class II standard in treating.
Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted on a total of ̉60 patients with an Angle Class II, division 1 malocclusion (ANB angle ≥ 4°, basic normal maxillary status), and an overjet of ≥ 6 mm in the developmental stage (CS1-CS3) who were eligible for the study. Thus, the sample consisted of 60 subjects (29 girls and 31 boys) with a mean age of 9.7 ± 1.31 years. The investigators designed the study to treat patients, randomly assigning them by lottery to receive either an activator or the EF (Functional Education) class II standard. The activator versus the EF (Functional Education) class II standard group consisted of 30 subjects (17 girls, 13 boys) and 30 subjects (12 girls, 18 boys), respectively. The changes in skeletal, dental, and soft tissue were recorded before, at 6 months of treatment. Blinding was not performed. After six months of treatment, the study's endpoint was reached.
Read the detailed description
A randomized clinical trial was conducted on a total of ̉60 patients with an Angle Class II, division 1 malocclusion, and an overjet of ≥6 mm who were eligible for the study. Thus, the sample consisted of 60 subjects (29 girls and 31 boys) with a mean age of 9.7 ± 1.31 years. We designed the study to treat patients, randomly assigning them by lottery to receive either an activator or the EF (Functional Education) class II standard. The activator versus the EF (Functional Education) class II standard group consisted of 30 subjects (17 girls, 13 boys) and 30 subjects (12 girls, 18 boys), respectively. The changes in skeletal, dental, and soft tissue were recorded before, at 6 months of treatment. Blinding was not performed. After six months of treatment, the study's endpoint was reached and then selected those who achieved the standards for sampling at Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy. The Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy Ethics Council in Biomedical Research No. 23. 340.HV/PCT-H signed the study on April 12, 2023.
- Conditions
- Class II Division 1 Malocclusion
- Being tested
- Skeletal, dental, soft tissue index changes in Activator group
- Keywords
- Angle CII division 1, Activator, EF CII standard, severe OJ
- Medical subject headings
- Malocclusion, Angle Class II
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Skeletal, dental, soft tissue index changes in Activator groupOther
After being interviewed and provided by a doctor with two kinds of appliances (Activator and EF class II standard) for treating class II malocclusion, the patients choose their appliance. The patients were separated into two groups (30 in each). Group 1 was treated with an Activator appliance (Activator group), whereas Group 2 was treated with an EF class II standard appliance (EF line group)
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Skeletal, dental, soft tissue index changes in Activator group | Experimental | Activator The researcher made wax impressions of the study's patients for both the activator and treatment monitoring. The researcher instructed the patients to use the activator device for 12-14 hours daily, with a minimum requirement of 12 hours. Precise ablation of the activator created plastic surfaces that guided the process of tooth eruption. Receives: Other: Skeletal, dental, soft tissue index changes in Activator group |
| Skeletal, dental, soft tissue index changes in EF class II standard group | Experimental | EF class II standard The researcher monitored the study children through therapy. The research used four types of EF class II standard appliances (Orthoplus, France). Patients were required to wear the EF class II standard device for at least 12 hours every day, including the entire night and at least 2 hours during the day. Receives: Other: Skeletal, dental, soft tissue index changes in Activator group |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
To compare the clinical effectiveness of reducing severe overjet in Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion between Activator and the EF (Functional Education) class II standard in treating.
Every month, the research participants from both groups underwent regular re-examinations, during which they collected cephalometric radiographs for assessment at two specific time points: T0, before treatment, and T1 after 6 months of treatment. A Planmeca ProMax® 2D digital X-ray system (Planmeca, Poland) captured the cephalometric radiographs. The Dental Hospital used the licensed AudaxCeph program to accurately draw lines and perform measurements on the cephalometric images.
Measured: 6 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Aug 2024
- Study start1 Apr 2023
- Primary completion1 May 2024
- Study completion1 Jun 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Class II Division 1 MalocclusionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- We designed the study to treat patients, randomly assigning them by lottery to receive either an activator or the EF (Functional Education) class II standard. The activator versus the EF (Functional Education) class II standard group consisted of 30 subjects (17 girls, 13 boys) and 30 subjects (12 girls, 18 boys), respectively. The changes in skeletal, dental, and soft tissue were recorded before, at 6 months of treatment. Blinding was not performed. After six months of treatment, the study's endpoint was reached and then selected those who achieved the standards for sampling at Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy. The Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy Ethics Council in Biomedical Research No. 23. 340.HV/PCT-H signed the study on April 12, 2023.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Lam Nguyen Le, PhD, Study director, Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06566027
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- LamNguyenLe FOS-CTUMP
- Status last verified
- Aug 2024
- First submitted
- 8 Aug 2024
- Last updated
- 22 Aug 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 Aug 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Activator Versus the EF (Functional Education) Class II Standard in the Treatment of Severe Overjet in Angle Class II Division 1 Malocclusion in Vietnamese Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06566027
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- LamNguyenLe FOS-CTUMP
- Conditions
- Class II Division 1 Malocclusion
- Keywords
- Angle CII division 1, Activator, EF CII standard, severe OJ
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Can Tho University of Medicine and PharmacyUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Apr 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 May 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Jun 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 22 Aug 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of reducing severe overjet in Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion between Activator and the EF (Functional Education) class II standard in treating.
Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted on a total of ̉60 patients with an Angle Class II, division 1 malocclusion (ANB angle ≥ 4°, basic normal maxillary status), and an overjet of ≥ 6 mm in the developmental stage (CS1-CS3) who were eligible for the study. Thus, the sample consisted of 60 subjects (29 girls and 31 boys) with a mean age of 9.7 ± 1.31 years. The investigators designed the study to treat patients, randomly assigning them by lottery to receive either an activator or the EF (Functional Education) class II standard. The activator versus the EF (Functional Education) class II standard group consisted of 30 subjects (17 girls, 13 boys) and 30 subjects (12 girls, 18 boys), respectively. The changes in skeletal, dental, and soft tissue were recorded before, at 6 months of treatment. Blinding was not performed. After six months of treatment, the study's endpoint was reached.
Detailed description
A randomized clinical trial was conducted on a total of ̉60 patients with an Angle Class II, division 1 malocclusion, and an overjet of ≥6 mm who were eligible for the study. Thus, the sample consisted of 60 subjects (29 girls and 31 boys) with a mean age of 9.7 ± 1.31 years. We designed the study to treat patients, randomly assigning them by lottery to receive either an activator or the EF (Functional Education) class II standard. The activator versus the EF (Functional Education) class II standard group consisted of 30 subjects (17 girls, 13 boys) and 30 subjects (12 girls, 18 boys), respectively. The changes in skeletal, dental, and soft tissue were recorded before, at 6 months of treatment. Blinding was not performed. After six months of treatment, the study's endpoint was reached and then selected those who achieved the standards for sampling at Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy. The Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy Ethics Council in Biomedical Research No. 23. 340.HV/PCT-H signed the study on April 12, 2023.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- We designed the study to treat patients, randomly assigning them by lottery to receive either an activator or the EF (Functional Education) class II standard. The activator versus the EF (Functional Education) class II standard group consisted of 30 subjects (17 girls, 13 boys) and 30 subjects (12 girls, 18 boys), respectively. The changes in skeletal, dental, and soft tissue were recorded before, at 6 months of treatment. Blinding was not performed. After six months of treatment, the study's endpoint was reached and then selected those who achieved the standards for sampling at Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy. The Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy Ethics Council in Biomedical Research No. 23. 340.HV/PCT-H signed the study on April 12, 2023.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Skeletal, dental, soft tissue index changes in Activator group | Experimental | Other: Skeletal, dental, soft tissue index changes in Activator groupActivator The researcher made wax impressions of the study's patients for both the activator and treatment monitoring. The researcher instructed the patients to use the activator device for 12-14 hours daily, with a minimum requirement of 12 hours. Precise ablation of the activator created plastic surfaces that guided the process of tooth eruption. |
| Skeletal, dental, soft tissue index changes in EF class II standard group | Experimental | Other: Skeletal, dental, soft tissue index changes in Activator groupEF class II standard The researcher monitored the study children through therapy. The research used four types of EF class II standard appliances (Orthoplus, France). Patients were required to wear the EF class II standard device for at least 12 hours every day, including the entire night and at least 2 hours during the day. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Vietnamese children between the ages of 7 and 12 with central incisors erupted
- Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion (ANB angle ≥ 4°, basic normal maxillary status)
- Severe overjet ≥ 6mm
- The developmental stage (CS1-CS3)
- No previous orthodontic treatment
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- The young with crossbite
- Severe crowding
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Skeletal, dental, soft tissue index changes in Activator groupAfter being interviewed and provided by a doctor with two kinds of appliances (Activator and EF class II standard) for treating class II malocclusion, the patients choose their appliance. The patients were separated into two groups (30 in each). Group 1 was treated with an Activator appliance (Activator group), whereas Group 2 was treated with an EF class II standard appliance (EF line group) | Other | Skeletal, dental, soft tissue index changes in Activator group, Skeletal, dental, soft tissue index changes in EF class II standard group |
Primary outcome
To compare the clinical effectiveness of reducing severe overjet in Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion between Activator and the EF (Functional Education) class II standard in treating.
Time frame: 6 months
Every month, the research participants from both groups underwent regular re-examinations, during which they collected cephalometric radiographs for assessment at two specific time points: T0, before treatment, and T1 after 6 months of treatment. A Planmeca ProMax® 2D digital X-ray system (Planmeca, Poland) captured the cephalometric radiographs. The Dental Hospital used the licensed AudaxCeph program to accurately draw lines and perform measurements on the cephalometric images.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 22 Aug 2024.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Class II Division 1 Malocclusion
Enrolling by invitation
Discision as Acceleration Method in Canine Retraction in Orthodontics With Aligner and Fixed Appliances in Young Adults a Split Mouth Study
Bimaxillary Protrusion, Class II Div 1 Malocclusion
Recruiting
Twin-Block and LIPUS for TMJ Outcomes in Skeletal Class II Patients
CLASS II DIVISION 1 MALOCCLUSION
Recruiting
LLLLT vs Piezocision in Accelerating Orthodontic Canine Retraction
Malocclusion, Angle Class II, Division 1, Bimaxillary Protrusion
Recruiting
EVALUATION OF TREATMENT CHANGES IN CLASS II DIVISION 1 MALOCCLUSION DURING EN MASSE RETRACTION OF UPPER ANTERIOR TEETH USING MINI IMPLANTS PLACED AT INFRAZYGOMATIC CREST AND INTERRADICULAR SITES A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL.
CLASS II DIVISION 1 MALOCCLUSION
Not yet recruiting
Comparison of Early Interceptive Orthodontic Appliances (Traditional and Novel) and Later Fixed Appliance Treatment in Class II Malocclusion.
Class II Malocclusion, Class II Malocclusion, Division 1
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Lam Nguyen Le, PhD study director
Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Skeletal, dental, soft tissue index changes in Activator group in people with Class II Division 1 Malocclusion, run by Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy at 1 site in Vietnam.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 Aug 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Vietnam. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
To compare the clinical effectiveness of reducing severe overjet in Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion between Activator and the EF (Functional Education) class II standard in treating. (time frame: 6 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 Aug 2024.