OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of wear-time recording on subjective and objective wear time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study retrospectively examined a group of 18 patients and a control group of 14 patients at four appointments over 168 days. The patients were treated with removable appliances with embedded TheraMon-microsensors to be worn for 15 hours per day. The study group was not told about the microsensor until the first appointment after fitting of the appliance. At each appointment patients were asked about their subjective wear time and afterward were told about the objective wear time. The existence of the microsensor was revealed to the control group when the appliance was fitted. Objective wear time was also announced at every appointment. RESULTS: Mean wear times did not significantly differ between groups at any appointment or regarding overall wear time. Highly significant differences between subjective and objective wear time were found when patients did not know that their wear time had been monitored. CONCLUSION: Mean wear times assessed in this study concur with data of previous studies. Patients tend to overestimate their wear times but become more realistic once they know wear time is being monitored. Objective measurement of wear time allows a more realistic view of compliance by patient and orthodontist. Knowing that wear time is recorded does not necessarily increase the amount of time removable appliances are worn by the patient.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of wear-time recording on subjective and objective wear time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study retrospectively examined a group of 18 patients and a control group of 14 patients at four appointments over 168 days. The patients were treated with removable appliances with embedded TheraMon-microsensors to be worn for 15 hours per day. The study group was not told about the microsensor until the first appointment after fitting of the appliance. At each appointment patients were asked about their subjective wear time and afterward were told about the objective wear time. The existence of the microsensor was revealed to the control group when the appliance was fitted. Objective wear time was also announced at every appointment. RESULTS: Mean wear times did not significantly differ between groups at any appointment or regarding overall wear time. Highly significant differences between subjective and objective wear time were found when patients did not know that their wear time had been monitored. CONCLUSION: Mean wear times assessed in this study concur with data of previous studies. Patients tend to overestimate their wear times but become more realistic once they know wear time is being monitored. Objective measurement of wear time allows a more realistic view of compliance by patient and orthodontist. Knowing that wear time is recorded does not necessarily increase the amount of time removable appliances are worn by the patient.