Clinical and quantitative assessment of headgear compliance: A pilot study

Brandão, Márcia Maria dos Anjos; Pinho, Heloisa Saad; Urias, Dayse

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.035

Cited by 58 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[1][2][3][4] However, despite the potential for achieving desirable treatment results, the success of this treatment modality depends heavily on patient cooperation. 5,6 It has previously been shown that compliance with headgear use has a significant effect on treatment outcome and duration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current trends in headgear use for the treatment of Class II malocclusions

Tüfekçi

Allen

Best

et al. 2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To investigate American and Canadian orthodontists' opinions and perceptions on the use of headgear in the treatment of Class II malocclusions. Materials and Methods: An online survey was sent to randomly chosen orthodontists (n 5 1000). Results: The study was completed by 948 orthodontists; 62% of the orthodontists indicated that they were using headgear in their practice. Those who were not using the appliance (38%) reported that this was mainly due to the availability of better Class II correctors in the market and lack of patient compliance. Of those who use headgear, 24% indicated that the emphasis on headgear use during their residency was an influential aspect of their decision making (P , .05). Nearly a quarter of those who do not use headgear reported that learning about other Class II correctors through continuing education courses was an important factor (P , .05). There was no difference between the headgear users and nonusers in the year and location of practice. Compared with previous studies, this study showed a decline in the use of headgear among orthodontists. Conclusions: Despite a decline, more than half of the orthodontists (62%) believe headgear is a viable treatment. Availability of Class II correctors in the market and familiarity with these appliances though continuing education courses are the reasons for the remaining 38% of orthodontists to abandon use of the headgear. (Angle

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current trends in headgear use for the treatment of Class II malocclusions

Tüfekçi

Allen

Best

et al. 2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[2][3][4][5][6][7] However, intermaxillary elastics rely heavily on patient compliance for their effectiveness, and compliance in orthodontics is variable and difficult to predict. 8 Poor cooperation can lead to poor treatment results and increased treatment time. 9,10 A number of compliance-free interarch appliances have been developed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Class II Non-Extraction Patients Treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device Versus Intermaxillary Elastics

Jones

Buschang

Kim

et al. 2008

The Angle Orthodontist

149

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) as a compliance-free alternative to Class II elastics. Materials and Methods: A sample of 34 (14 female, 20 male) consecutively treated nonextraction FRD patients (12.6 years of age) were matched with a sample of 34 (14 female, 20 male) consecutively treated nonextraction Class II elastics patients (12.2 years of age) based on four pretreatment variables (ANB, L1-GoMe, SN-GoMe, and treatment duration). Pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs were traced and analyzed using the pitchfork analysis and a vertical cephalometric analysis. t-Tests were used to evaluate group differences. Group differences were evaluated using t-tests. Results:No statistically significant differences were found in the treatment changes between the groups. There was a general trend for mesial movement of the maxilla, mandible, and dentition during treatment for both groups. The mandibular skeletal advancement and dental movements were greater than those in the maxilla, which accounted for the Class II correction. Lower incisor proclination was evident in both groups. Vertically, the maxillary and mandibular molars erupted during treatment in both groups, while lower incisors proclined. With the exception of lower molar mesial movements and total molar correction, which were significantly (P Ͻ .05) greater in the Forsus group, there were no statistically significant group differences in the treatment changes. Conclusions:The Forsus FRD is an acceptable substitute for Class II elastics for noncompliant patients.

show abstract

“…15,16 A pro longed functional phase followed by introduction of headgear may well be very demanding in terms of cooperation. Sub-optimal compliance among patients wearing headgear as an adjunct to fixed appliances is well documented.…”

Section: Methods Of Consolidating Class II Correction Reinforced Anchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transferring from functional to fixed appliances

2016

Orthodontic Functional Appliances

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical and quantitative assessment of headgear compliance: A pilot study

Cited by 58 publications

References 25 publications

Current trends in headgear use for the treatment of Class II malocclusions

Current trends in headgear use for the treatment of Class II malocclusions

Class II Non-Extraction Patients Treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device Versus Intermaxillary Elastics

Transferring from functional to fixed appliances

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About