Abstract
Objectives
Are removable appliances still being routinely used in orthodontic offices? Which methods do clinicians use to assess compliance with wear requirements, and how effective are these methods considered to be?
Subjects and methods
A questionnaire inquiring about types of treatment, methods of assessing patient compliance with removable appliances, and the perceived effectiveness of these methods was mailed to a sample of 375 members of the German Orthodontic Society (“Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kieferorthopädie”, DGKFO).
Results
The rate of returned questionnaires was 29 %. Almost all respondents (99 %) indicated that they used removable appliances and reported having a “relatively high” proportion of patients currently undergoing such treatment. The most widely used methods of compliance assessment were questioning patients and parents (96 %) and examining clinical parameters associated with the dentition and the appliance’s fit (95–100 %). While these parameters were considered “highly effective”, questioning the patients and parents was regarded as “less effective” despite its frequent application.
Conclusion
Removable appliances continue to be a standard method of orthodontic treatment. While patient compliance with wear requirements is mainly assessed via indirect clinical methods, the effectiveness of these parameters remains unclear.
Zusammenfassung
Zielsetzung
Gehören herausnehmbare Apparaturen noch zum Standard der kieferorthopädischen Therapie? Welche Methoden zur Ermittlung der Compliance werden bei diesen Apparaturen angewendet und als wie effektiv werden sie eingeschätzt?
Probanden und Methoden
Einer Stichprobe von 375 Mitgliedern der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kieferorthopädie (DGKFO) wurde ein Fragebogen zugesandt. Die Fragen bezogen sich auf die Art der Therapie, Methoden zur Ermittlung der Compliance bei herausnehmbaren Apparaturen und deren Effektivität.
Ergebnisse
Die Rücklaufquote der Fragebögen betrug 29 %. Bei 99 % der Befragten wurden herausnehmbare Apparaturen verwendet. Der Anteil der aktiven Behandlungsfälle wurde als „relativ hoch“ eingeschätzt. Die zur Ermittlung der Compliance am häufigsten angewandten Methoden sind die Befragung von Patienten und Eltern (96 %) sowie indirekte klinische Parameter, die sich auf die Dentition und die Passung der Apparatur beziehen (95–100 %). Klinische Parameter wurden als „sehr effektiv“ bewertet, die Befragung von Patienten und Eltern dagegen, trotz des häufigen Einsatzes, als „weniger effektiv“.
Schlussfolgerung
Herausnehmbare Apparaturen sind auch heute noch Standard der kieferorthopädischen Therapie. Zur Ermittlung der Compliance bei herausnehmbaren Apparaturen werden hauptsächlich indirekte klinische Methoden angewendet, deren Effektivität nicht abschließend geklärt ist.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Ackerman MB, Thornton B (2011) Posttreatment compliance with removable maxillary retention in a teenage population: a short-term randomized clinical trial. Orthodontics (Chic) 12:22–27
Bartsch A, Witt E, Sahm G et al (1993) Correlates of objective patient compliance with removable appliance wear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 104:378–386
Bimler HP, Bimler AB (1987) Monitoring of orthodontic treatment using individual reaction curves. Fortschr Kieferorthop 48:371–378
Bos A, Hoogstraten J, Prahl-Andersen B (2005) Towards a comprehensive model for the study of compliance in orthodontics. Eur J Orthod 27:296–301
Bos A, Kleverlaan CJ, Hoogstraten J et al (2007) Comparing subjective and objective measures of headgear compliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132:801–805
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
Cole WA (2002) Accuracy of patient reporting as an indication of headgear compliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 121:419–423
Cureton SL, Regennitter FJ, Yancey JM (1993) Clinical versus quantitative assessment of headgear compliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 104:277–284
Cureton SL, Regennitter FJ, Yancey JM (1993) The role of the headgear calendar in headgear compliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 104:387–394
Hawkins DI, Coney KA (1981) Uninformed response error in survey research. J Mark Res 18:370–374
Haynes RB (1979) Introduction. In: Haynes RB TDW, Sackett DL (eds) Compliance in health care, 1st edn. Johns Hopkins University Press
Korbmacher H, Kahl-Nieke B, Schnabel S (2000) Early orthodontic treatment of Class-III malocclusion in Germany. J Orofac Orthop 61:168–174
Krey KF, Hirsch C (2012) Frequency of orthodontic treatment in German children and adolescents: influence of age, gender, and socio-economic status. Eur J Orthod 34:152–157
Mehra T, Nanda RS, Sinha PK (1998) Orthodontists’ assessment and management of patient compliance. Angle Orthod 68:115–122
Meier B, Wiemer KB, Miethke RR (2003) Invisalign—patient profiling. Analysis of a prospective survey. J Orofac Orthop 64:352–358
Sahm G, Bartsch A, Witt E (1990) Micro-electronic monitoring of functional appliance wear. Eur J Orthod 12:297–301
Sahm G, Bartsch A, Witt E (1990) Reliability of patient reports on compliance. Eur J Orthod 12:438–446
Schott TC, Engelhard L, Gomez-Serrano D et al (2011) Comparison of estimated and actual changes in gap widths of expansion screws in plate appliances with 7- and 14-day activation. J Orofac Orthop 72:446–456
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
Schott TC, Göz G (2011) Color fading of the blue compliance indicator encapsulated in removable clear Invisalign Teen® aligners. Angle Orthod 81:185–191
Schott TC, Göz G (2011) Wearing times of orthodontic devices as measured by the TheraMon® microsensor. J Orofac Orthop 72:103–110
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
Slakter MJ, Albino JE, Fox RN et al (1980) Reliability and stability of the orthodontic Patient Cooperation Scale. Am J Orthod 78:559–563
Tervonen MM, Pirttiniemi P, Lahti S (2011) Development of a measure for orthodontists to evaluate patient compliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 139:791–796
Williams A (2003) How to … write and analyse a questionnaire. J Orthod 30:245–252
Witt E, Bartsch A, Sahm G (1992) Recommended times for wearing removable appliances—the results of a survey. Fortschr Kieferorthop 53:124–130
Wriedt S, Schmidtmann I, Indin-Wolf A et al (2012) Extraktionen in der KFO-Praxis − eine Umfrage zu Häufigkeit, Lokalisation und Indikation. Wissenschaftliche Jahrestagung der DGKFO, Stuttgart
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the clinicians who completed and returned our study questionnaire.
Danksagung
Wir danken den Studienteilnehmern für ihre Mitarbeit.
Compliance with ethical guidelines
Conflict of interest. H. Meyer-Gutknecht, U. Fritz, and T.C. Schott state that there are no conflicts of interest. The accompanying manuscript does not include studies on humans or animals.
Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien
Interessenkonflikt. H. Meyer-Gutknecht, U. Fritz und T.C. Schott geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meyer-Gutknecht, H., Fritz, U. & Schott, T. Methods to evaluate compliance of patients with removable appliances—survey results. J Orofac Orthop 75, 144–153 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-013-0202-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-013-0202-8