Comparison of objective wear time between monoblock and twin-block appliances measured by microsensor.
Compliance
Microsensor
Monoblock
Orthodontics
Twin-block
Journal
The Angle orthodontist
ISSN: 1945-7103
Titre abrégé: Angle Orthod
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370550
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2021
01 Nov 2021
Historique:
accepted:
01
05
2021
received:
01
02
2021
pubmed:
29
7
2021
medline:
5
11
2021
entrez:
28
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the objective compliance levels in skeletal Class II patients with mandibular retrognathia wearing monoblock and twin-block appliances. A prospective clinical study was conducted with 30 patients between 10 and 15 years old who were equally divided into two study groups. Group 1 was treated with monoblock, and group 2 was treated with twin-block appliances. The patients were instructed to wear their appliance for 15 hours per day. Wear times were monitored by a microsensor. (TheraMon; MCTechnology, Hargelsberg, Austria) for an average of six appointments. Patients were also instructed to record their wear times on a chart, and this record was admitted as subjective wear time. Statistical analysis was performed with the data derived from both the patients' charts and the monitoring records. The mean wear time by the patients was 10.67 ± 3.93 hours, which was less than the 15 hours prescribed by the orthodontist, with no difference between the two appliances (P > .05). The regular use rate, which included the days with a wear time of 8 hours or more per day, was 75%. Compliance levels decreased by 35% throughout the six control appointments. Patients declared that their wear time was more than their objective wear time by an average of 3.76 hours. Despite their different designs, there was no significant difference between the monoblock and twin-block appliances in terms of compliance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34319376
pii: 468291
doi: 10.2319/021421-128.1
pmc: PMC8549564
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
749-755Informations de copyright
© 2021 by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.
Références
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988 Jan;93(1):1-18
pubmed: 3422118
Eur J Orthod. 2007 Dec;29(6):614-21
pubmed: 17878188
J Orofac Orthop. 2009 May;70(3):185-99
pubmed: 19484412
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Aug;146(2):155-60
pubmed: 25085297
J Orofac Orthop. 2010 Sep;71(5):339-47
pubmed: 20963543
Angle Orthod. 2011 Mar;81(2):185-91
pubmed: 21208067
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993 Oct;104(4):378-86
pubmed: 8213661
Eur J Orthod. 2015 Feb;37(1):73-80
pubmed: 24993614
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019 Feb;155(2):173-181
pubmed: 30712688
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 May;129(5):599.e1-12; discussion e1-6
pubmed: 16679196
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014 Nov 17;8:1587-95
pubmed: 25484576
Eur J Orthod. 2016 Dec;38(6):621-630
pubmed: 26628629
Angle Orthod. 1978 Jul;48(3):175-86
pubmed: 280125
Aust Dent J. 2017 Mar;62 Suppl 1:4-10
pubmed: 28297093
Eur J Orthod. 2020 Apr 1;42(2):180-186
pubmed: 31982915
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993 Oct;104(4):387-94
pubmed: 8213662
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019 Feb;155(2):165-172
pubmed: 30712687
Angle Orthod. 2014 Jan;84(1):56-61
pubmed: 23834273
Adv Clin Exp Med. 2017 Nov;26(8):1245-1251
pubmed: 29264882
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Jul;152(1):17-32
pubmed: 28651764
Semin Orthod. 1999 Dec;5(4):231-40
pubmed: 10860060
Orthodontics (Chic.). 2011 Spring;12(1):22-7
pubmed: 21789287
Angle Orthod. 2017 Jan;87(1):88-95
pubmed: 27508935
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020 Oct;158(4):518-526
pubmed: 32988567
Eur J Orthod. 2018 Jul 27;40(4):350-355
pubmed: 29471384
Eur J Orthod. 2017 Apr 1;39(2):170-175
pubmed: 27030283
Angle Orthod. 2013 Nov;83(6):1002-8
pubmed: 23611166
Angle Orthod. 2018 Jul;88(4):458-464
pubmed: 29583018
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Oct;116(4):460-8
pubmed: 10511676
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Apr;129(4 Suppl):S64-5
pubmed: 16644420