Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 2.1
5-Year Impact Factor – 2.2
Scopus CiteScore – 3.4 (CiteScore Tracker 3.4)
Index Copernicus  – 161.11; MEiN – 140 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2017, vol. 26, nr 1, January-February, p. 83–87

doi: 10.17219/acem/62107

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Objectively measured compliance during early orthodontic treatment: Do treatment needs have an impact?

Michał Sarul1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Beata Kawala1,E,F, Anna Kozanecka1,C,F, Jan Łyczek1,B, Joanna Antoszewska-Smith1,A,C,E,F

1 Department of Maxillofacial Orthopedics and Orthodontics, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland


Background. Objective assessment of daily wear time of removable appliances is possible, so the next step is to ascertain whether the severity of malocclusion influences patients’ compliance. This could help resolve the controversy over the question of whether removable appliance therapy truly works.
Objectives. The aim of the study was to investigate whether the patient’s orthodontic treatment needs affect the cooperation between the patient and the doctor, and to find a correlation that could affect recommendations for orthodontic treatment.
Material and Methods. The study involved 58 patients (29 boys, 29 girls) aged 9–12 years, who qualified for treatment with removable appliances equipped with a sensor system. The patients were divided into four groups according to their Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need dental health component scores. Over a 9-month period, data stored in the sensors were compared with the recommended daily wear time (DWT) of the appliances, and a statistical analysis was conducted.
Results. DWT differed considerably in all the groups. Statistically significant differences in the mean DWT values occurred only when extreme values of the IOTN DHC were compared.
Conclusion. The degree of patient compliance depends to a small extent on the severity of malocclusion. Patients with mild malocclusion will probably be less likely to cooperate. Among patients with severe malocclusion, compliance may be unpredictable. Patient compliance is an important background factor that can explain a lot of the controversy over the effectiveness of treatment with removable appliances.

Key words

Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need, orthodontics, orthodontic removable appliances, patient compliance

References (21)

  1. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby Elsevier; 2007: Chap.6.
  2. Peck H, Peck S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod. 1970;40:284–317.
  3. Kiekens RMA, Maltha JC, Hof MA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Objective measures as indicators for facial esthetics in white adolescents. Angle Orthod. 2006;76;551–556.
  4. Shaw WC, Richmond S, O’Brien KD. The use of occlusal indices: A European perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;107:1–10.
  5. Nimri K, Richardson A. Applicability of interceptive orthodontics in the community. British J Orthod. 1997;24:223–228.
  6. Schott TC, Goz G. Young patients attitudes’ toward removable appliance wear times, wear-time instructions and electronic wear-time measurements – results of a questionnaire study. J Orofac Orthop. 2010;71:108–116.
  7. Hotelling H, Pabst MR. Rank correlation and tests of significance involving no assumption of normality. Ann Math Stat. 1936;7:29–43.
  8. Feine JS, Maskawi K, de Grandmont P, Donohue WB, Tanguay R, Lund JP. Within-subject comparisons of implant-supported mandibular pros-theses: Evaluation of masticatory function. J Dent Res. 1994;73:1646–1656.
  9. McNamara JA, Seligman DA, Okeson JP. Occlusion, orthodontic treatment and temporomandibular disorders. J Orofacial Pain. 1995;9:73–90.
  10. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby Elsevier; 2007:Chap. 2.
  11. Sadovsky C, BeGole EA. Long-term effects of orthodontic treatment on the periodontal health. Am J Orthod. 1981;80:156–172.
  12. Polson AM. Long-term effect of orthodontic treatment on the periodontium. McNamara JA, Ribbens KA, eds. Malocclusion and the perio-dontium. AnnArbor, Mich: The University of Michigan Press; 1987.
  13. Shaw WC. The influence of children’s dentofacial appearance on their social attractiveness as judged by peers and lay adults. Am J Orthod. 1981;79:399–415.
  14. Mandall NA, McCord JF, Blinkhorn AS, Worthington HV, O’Brien KD. Perceived aesthetic impact of malocclusion and oral self-perceptions in 14–15-year-old Asian and Caucasian children in greater Manchester. Eur J Orthop. 2000;22:175–183.
  15. Shaw WC, Rees G, Dawe M, Charles CR. The influence of dentofacial appearance on the social attractiveness of young adults. Am J Orthod. 1985;87:21–26.
  16. Cons NC, Jenny J, Khout FJ. Perceptions of occlusal conditions in Australia, the German Democratic Republic and the United States. Int Dent J. 1983;33:200–206.
  17. Farrow AL, Zarinnia K, Khosrow A. Bimaxillary protrusion in black Americans – an esthetic evaluation and the treatment considerations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1993;104:240–250.
  18. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby Elsevier; 2007:Chap. 8.
  19. Chen JY, Will LA, Niederman R. Analysis of efficacy of functional appliances on mandibular growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;122:470–476.
  20. Keeling SD, Wheeler TT, King GJ, et al. Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionators and head-gear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;113:40–50.
  21. Tulloch JFC, Proffit WR, Phillips C. Outcomes in a 2-phase randomized clinical trial of early Class II treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Or-thop. 2004;125:657–667.