Literature DB >> 29269817

Compliance with removable orthodontic appliances.

Nirmal Shah1.   

Abstract

Data sourcesMedline via OVID, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science Core Collection, LILACS and BBO databases. Unpublished clinical trials accessed using ClinicalTrials.gov, National Research Register, ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis database.Study selectionTwo authors searched studies from inception until May 2016 without language restrictions. Quantitative and qualitative studies incorporating objective data on compliance with removable appliances, barriers to appliance wear compliance, and interventions to improve compliance were included.Data extraction and synthesisQuality of research was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool, the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I), and the mixed methods appraisal tool. Statistical heterogeneity was investigated by examining a graphic display of the estimated compliance levels in conjunction with 95% confidence intervals and quantified using the I-squared statistic. A weighted estimate of objective compliance levels for different appliances in relation to stipulated wear and self-reported levels was also calculated. Risk of publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Meta-regression was undertaken to assess the relative effects of appliance type on compliance levels.ResultsTwenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 were included in the quantitative synthesis. The mean duration of objectively measured wear was considerably lower than stipulated wear time amongst all appliances. Headgear had the greatest discrepancy (5.81 hours, 95% confidence interval, 4.98, 6.64). Self-reported wear time was consistently higher than objectively measured wear time amongst all appliances. Headgear had the greatest discrepancy (5.02 hours, 95% confidence interval, 3.64, 6.40). Two studies found an increase in compliance with headgear and Hawley retainers when patients were aware of monitoring. Five studies found younger age groups to be more compliant than older groups. Three studies also found compliance to be better in the early stages of treatment. Integration between quantitative and qualitative studies was not possible.ConclusionsCompliance with removable orthodontic appliances is suboptimal. Patients wear appliances for considerably less time than stipulated and self-reported. Compliance may be increased when patients are aware of monitoring; however, further research is required to identify effective interventions and possible barriers in order to improve removable orthodontic appliance compliance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29269817     DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401268

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evid Based Dent        ISSN: 1462-0049


  14 in total

1.  Physiologic recovery following orthodontic treatment.

Authors:  S L Horowitz; E H Hixon
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1969-01

2.  Patient compliance with Hawley retainers fitted with the SMART(®) sensor: a prospective clinical pilot study.

Authors:  Paul Hyun; Charles Brian Preston; Thikriat S Al-Jewair; Eunhae Park-Hyun; Sawsan Tabbaa
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Patient cooperation in wearing orthodontic headgear.

Authors:  E J Clemmer; E W Hayes
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1979-05

Review 4.  A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of interventions to improve adherence among orthodontic patients aged 12 to 18.

Authors:  AlJazi Aljabaa; Fraser McDonald; Jonathon Timothy Newton
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-07-21       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  Patient compliance with orthodontic retainers in the postretention phase.

Authors:  Michael C Pratt; G Thomas Kluemper; Adam F Lindstrom
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 2.650

6.  Reliability of patient reports on compliance.

Authors:  G Sahm; A Bartsch; E Witt
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Quantifying patient adherence during active orthodontic treatment with removable appliances using microelectronic wear-time documentation.

Authors:  Katharina Schäfer; Björn Ludwig; Hannes Meyer-Gutknecht; Timm Cornelius Schott
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  The role of the headgear calendar in headgear compliance.

Authors:  S L Cureton; F J Regennitter; J M Yancey
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 2.650

9.  What can be achieved with removable orthodontic appliances?

Authors:  Rainer-Reginald Miethke; Claudia Wronski
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2009-05-31       Impact factor: 1.938

10.  Factors influencing treatment time in orthodontic patients.

Authors:  Kirsty J Skidmore; Karen J Brook; W Murray Thomson; Winifred J Harding
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.650

View more
  3 in total

1.  Comparative mechanical testing for different orthodontic aligner materials over time - in vitro study.

Authors:  Clara-Marie Nowak; Ahmed Othman; Dragan-Alexander Ströbele; Constantin von See
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2022-06-01

2.  Utilization of a 3D Printed Orthodontic Distalizer for Tooth-Borne Hybrid Treatment in Class II Unilateral Malocclusions.

Authors:  Andrej Thurzo; Wanda Urbanová; Bohuslav Novák; Iveta Waczulíková; Ivan Varga
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 3.623

3.  Remote digital monitoring during the retention phase of orthodontic treatment: A prospective feasibility study.

Authors:  Linda Sangalli; Fabio Savoldi; Domenico Dalessandri; Luca Visconti; Francesca Massetti; Stefano Bonetti
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 1.372

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.