Comparison of objective wear time between monoblock and twin-block appliances measured by microsensor

Abstract

Objectives To assess the objective compliance levels in skeletal Class II patients with mandibular retrognathia wearing monoblock and twin-block appliances. Materials and Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions Despite their different designs, there was no significant difference between the monoblock and twin-block appliances in terms of compliance.

Patient adherence in orthodontics: a scoping review

“…Adherence to the prescribed wear time of functional appliances was investigated in 18 studies. Of these studies, the wear time of headgear appliances was the subject in four studies [ 25 , 32 , 58 , 59 ], the wear time of twin block and monobloc appliances was investigated in five studies [ 18 , 24 , 27 , 28 , 60 ], the wear time of headgear-activators was discussed in one study [ 17 ], and the wear time of maxillary expansion appliances in two studies [ 20 , 21 ]. To investigate the influence of the appliance type on wear time adherence, six studies investigated and compared the wear time of multiple appliances [ 22 , 23 , 29 , 30 , 61 , 62 ].…”

Orthodontic Compliance Assessment: A Systematic Review

“… 16 , 17 The minimum observation period was 30 days, 12 and the maximum period was 23 months. 17 Loss of patients during the study ranged from 0 8 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 to a maximum of 22. 34 …”

“…Retainers, 7 , 12 , 25 , 34 , 35 , 36 functional appliances, 7 , 8 , 9 , 13 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 24 , 26 , 31 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 active removable appliances, 8 , 9 , 16 , 22 , 24 , 32 , 41 and extraoral appliances 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 were used in the study. Objective measurement of DWT was carried out primarily using TheraMon® microsensors.…”

“…The quality of case control and cohort studies as assessed by NOS was high. As many as 17 eligible studies 7 , 8 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 9 , 13 , 18 , 19 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 scored 8 out of total 9 points, whilst the remaining studies 6 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 40 scored 7 out of 9 points. The results of those analyses are presented in Appendix Tables 3 and 4 .…”

Microsensors in the retention treatment of orthodontic patients - literature review

“…Mikroczujnik odczytuje i zapisuje aktualną temperaturę (z zakresu od 33,5°C do 39,5°C z dokładnością do 0,1°C) co 15 minut. Odczytane wartości są rejestrowane w pamięci wewnętrznej urządzenia [11,16,17,18]. Możliwe jest także przesyłanie danych do aplikacji mobilnej w telefonie.…”