Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Questionnaire study of electronic wear-time tracking as experienced by patients and parents during treatment with removable orthodontic appliances

Beurteilung der elektronischen Tragezeitmessung bei herausnehmbaren KFO-Apparaturen durch Patienten und deren Eltern im Rahmen einer Fragebogenstudie

  • Original article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To survey how patients and parents rate microelectronic wear-time tracking (TheraMon®) during treatment with removable orthodontic appliances.

Patients and methods

A total of 125 patients with a mean age of 11.99 years whose treatment involved removable appliances with a built-in microsensor for wear-time documentation were enrolled in a questionnaire study addressing electronic wear-time tracking. Respondents included the patients and their parents.

Results

A total of 86% of the patients reported that the orthodontic appliance’s comfort was unaffected by the installed sensor. A majority of respondents had a favorable impression of wear-time tracking. Printed wear-time documents from the clinician’s computer were considered a “nice certificate of compliance” by 46% of patients, and 38% of them stated that they intended to improve their compliance when faced with a poor record. Indeed, 48% of parents believe that wear-time tracking can improve the therapeutic success, while 32% believe that it can reduce the duration of treatment. Around 10% of respondents felt that the sensors were unnecessary and not recommendable.

Conclusion

These favorable ratings by patients and their parents may help future patients and users to decide for or against microelectronic wear-time tracking. Randomized studies are needed to demonstrate whether the sheer presence of a wear-time sensor stimulates compliance on its own.

Zusammenfassung

Fragestellung

Wie beurteilen Patienten und Eltern mikroelektronische Tragezeitmesser (TheraMon®) bei der Therapie mit herausnehmbaren KFO-Apparaturen?

Patienten und Methodik

125 Patienten (Durchschnittsalter 11,99 Jahre) in kieferorthopädischer Behandlung mit herausnehmbaren Apparaturen, in die ein Mikrosensor zur Tragezeitdokumentation eingebaut war, haben ebenso wie ihre Eltern in einer Fragebogenstudie die elektronische Tragezeitmessung beurteilt.

Ergebnisse

Der Einbau des Sensors beeinträchtigte den Tragekomfort der KFO-Apparaturen nicht, wie 86% der Patienten angaben. Die Befragten befürworten mehrheitlich eine elektronische Tragezeitdokumentation. Die ausgedruckten Tragezeiten bewerteten 46% der Patienten als eine „schöne Urkunde“ ihrer guten Compliance. Bei schlechten Tragezeiten wollten 38% der Patienten ihre Compliance zukünftig verbessern. 48% der Eltern sahen sogar in der Tragezeitmessung einen Weg zur Verbesserung des Therapieerfolgs, 32% nahmen an, dass auch die Therapiedauer verkürzt werden kann. Etwa 10% der Befragten bewerteten Sensoren als überflüssig und nicht empfehlenswert.

Schlussfolgerung

Das positive Urteil der Patienten und Eltern kann auch für künftige Patienten und Anwender bei ihrer Entscheidung für oder gegen eine mikroelektronische Tragezeitdokumentation hilfreich sein. Weitere randomisierte Studien sind erforderlich um nachzuweisen, ob bereits die Tragezeitsensoren die Compliance stimulieren.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ackerman MB, McRae MS, Longley WH (2009) Microsensor technology to help monitor removable appliance wear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 135:549–551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Banks PA, Read MJ (1987) An investigation into the reliability of the timing headgear. Br J Orthod 14:263–267

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bartsch A, Witt E, Dietz I et al (1993) The clinical and psychological indicators of behavior in wearing a removable appliance. Fortschr Kieferorthop 54:119–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brandao M, Pinho HS, Urias D (2006) Clinical and quantitative assessment of headgear compliance: a pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 129:239–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Casutt C, Pancherz H, Gawora M et al (2007) Success rate and efficiency of activator treatment. Eur J Orthod 29:614–621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Clemmer EJ, Hayes EW (1979) Patient cooperation in wearing orthodontic headgear. Am J Orthod 75:517–524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cole WA (2002) Accuracy of patient reporting as an indication of headgear compliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 121:419–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cureton SL, Regennitter F, Orbell MG (1991) An accurate, inexpensive headgear timer. J Clin Orthod 25:749–754

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cureton SL, Regennitter FJ, Yancey JM (1993) Clinical vs. quantitative assessment of headgear compliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 104:277–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gross AM, Bishop FW, Reese D et al (1988) Increasing patient compliance with appointment keeping. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 93:259–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Güray E, Orhan M (1997) Selçuk type headgear-timer (STHT). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 111:87–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Klages U, Sergl HG (1987) Theoretische Ansätze für eine bessere Motivierung der Patienten in der Kieferorthopädie. Fortschr Kieferorthop 48:112–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kyriacou PA, Jones DP (1997) Compliance monitor for use with removable orthodontic headgear appliances. Med Biol Eng Comput 35:57–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee SJ, Ahn SJ, Kim TW (2008) Patient compliance and locus of control in orthodontic treatment: a prospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133:354–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lyons EK, Ramsay DS (2002) Preliminary tests of a new device to monitor orthodontic headgear use. Semin Orthod 8:29–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Miethke RR, Wronski C (2009) What can be achieved with removable orthodontic appliances? J Orofac Orthop 70:185–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mitchell JI (1976) It is time for the timing headgear. J Clin Orthod 10:919–920

    Google Scholar 

  18. Northcutt ME (1974) The timing headgear. J Clin Orthod 8:321–324

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Northcutt ME (1975) Updating the timing headgear. J Clin Orthod 9:713–717

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sahm G (1990) The realization of a wear-timing device for clarifying the scientific questions presented in orthodontics. Fortschr Kieferorthop 51:243–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schott TC (2011) Einbau eines Mikrosensors in herausnehmbare kieferorthopädische Geräte. Quintessenz Zahntech 37:898–904

    Google Scholar 

  22. Schott TC, Göz G (2010) Applicative characteristics of new microelectronic sensors Smart Retainer® and TheraMon® for measuring wear time. J Orofac Orthop 71:339–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schott TC, Göz G (2011) Wearing times of orthodontic devices as measured by the TheraMon® microsensor. J Orofac Orthop 72:103–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schott TC, Göz G (2010) Young patients’ attitudes toward removable appliance wear times, wear-time instructions and electronic wear-time measurements – results of a questionnaire study. J Orofac Orthop 71:108–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schott TC, Ludwig B (2012) Elektronische Dokumentation der Tragezeiten von KFO-Apparaturen. Kieferorthopädische Nachrichten 12:7–8

    Google Scholar 

  26. Schott TC, Ludwig B, Glasl BA et al (2011) A microsensor for monitoring removable-appliance wear. J Clin Orthod 45:518–520 (quiz 516)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there are no conflicts of interest.

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seine Koautoren an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, Center of Dentistry, Oral Medicine, and Maxillofacial Surgery, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Osianderstr. 2−8, 72076, Tübingen, Germany

    T.C. Schott

  2. Private Practice, Leverkusen-Opladen, Germany

    S. Schrey

  3. Private Practice, Kevelaer, Germany

    J. Walter

  4. Private Practice, Traben-Trarbach, Germany

    B.A. Glasl & B. Ludwig

  5. Department of Orthodontics, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, Germany

    B. Ludwig

Authors
  1. T.C. Schott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Schrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Walter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B.A. Glasl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. B. Ludwig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T.C. Schott.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schott, T., Schrey, S., Walter, J. et al. Questionnaire study of electronic wear-time tracking as experienced by patients and parents during treatment with removable orthodontic appliances. J Orofac Orthop 74, 217–225 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-013-0143-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-013-0143-2

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation