Factors Influencing Appliance Wearing Time during Orthodontic Treatments: A Literature Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Aim and Objectives
3. Methods
- ‘P’ (patients/problem/population)—young and adult patients
- ‘I’ (intervention)—orthodontic treatment
- ‘C’ (comparison)—clear aligners, fixed multibracket, functional removable appliance
- ‘O’ (outcome)—evaluation of patient compliance (appliance wearing time).
Assessment of Relevance, Validity, and Data Extraction
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. “Appliance-Related” Factors
4.2. “Patient-Related” Factors
4.3. “Clinician-Related” Factors
4.4. Self-Reported Patient Compliance: Myths and Facts
4.5. Compliance Monitoring: Physical Devices and Chemical Indicators
4.6. How to Improve Compliance? Teledentistry Could Be an Answer
4.7. Limitations of the Study
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Nanda, R.S.; Kierl, M.J. Prediction of cooperation in orthodontic treatment. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1992, 102, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Moghrabi, D.; Salazar, F.C.; Pandis, N.; Fleming, P.S. Compliance with removable orthodontic appliances and adjuncts: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2017, 152, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartsch, A.; Witt, E.; Sahm, G.; Schneider, S. Correlates of objective patient compliance with removable appliance wear. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1993, 104, 378–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casutt, C.; Pancherz, H.; Gawora, M.; Ruf, S. Success rate and efficiency of activator treatment. Eur. J. Orthod. 2007, 26, 614–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ukra, A.; Bennani, F.; Farella, M. Psychological aspects of orthodontics in clinical practice. Part one: Treatment-specific variables. Prog. Orthod. 2011, 12, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Monaco, A.; Tepedino, M.; Sabetti, L.; Petrucci, A.; Sgolastra, F. An adolescent treated with rapid maxillary expansion presenting with strabismus: A case report. J. Med. Case Rep. 2013, 23, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Prabakaran, R.; Seymour, S.; Moles, D.R.; Cunningham, S.J. Motivation for orthodontic treatment investigated with Q-methodology: Patients’ and parents’ perspectives. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2012, 142, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Huni, A.; Colonio Salazar, F.B.; Sharma, P.K.; Fleming, P.S. Understanding factors influencing compliance with removable functional appliances: A qualitative study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2019, 155, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beckwith, F.R.; Ackerman, R.J., Jr.; Cobb, C.M.; Tira, D.E. An evaluation of factors affecting duration of orthodontic treatment. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1999, 115, 439–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skidmore, K.J.; Brook, K.J.; Thomson, W.M.; Harding, W.J. Factors influencing treatment time in orthodontic patients. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2006, 129, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schafer, K.; Ludwig, B.; Meyer-Gutknecht, H.; Schott, T.C. Quantifying patient adherence during active orthodontic treatment with removable appliances using microelectronic wear-time documentation. Eur. J. Orthod. 2015, 37, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Arreghini, A.; Trigila, S.; Lombardo, L.; Siciliani, G. Objective assessment of compliance with intra- and extraoral removable appliances. Angle Orthod. 2016, 87, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bos, A.; Hoogstraten, J.; Prahl-Andersen, B. Attitudes towards orthodontic treatment: A comparison of treated and untreated subjects. Eur. J. Orthod. 2005, 27, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bos, A.; Kleverlaan, C.J.; Hoogstraten, J.; Prahl-Andersen, B.; Kuitert, R. Comparing subjective and objective measures of headgear compliance. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2007, 132, 801–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brandao, M.; Pinho, H.S.; Urias, D. Clinical and quantitative assessment of headgear compliance: A pilot study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2006, 129, 239–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brierley, C.A.; Benson, P.E.; Sandler, J. How accurate are Theramon microsensors at measuring intraoral wear-time? Recorded vs. actual wear times in five volunteers. J. Orthod. 2017, 44, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cucalon, A.T.; Smith, R.J. Relationship between compliance by adolescent orthodontic patients and performance on psychological tests. Angle Orthod. 1990, 60, 107–114. [Google Scholar]
- Dalessandri, D.; Sangalli, L.; Tonni, I.; Laffranchi, L.; Bonetti, S.; Visconti, L.; Signoroni, A.; Paganelli, C. Attitude towards Telemonitoring in Orthodontists and Orthodontic Patients. Dent. J. 2021, 9, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doll, G.M.; Zentner, A.; Klages, U.; Sergl, H.G. Relationship between Patient Discomfort, Appliance Acceptance and Compliance in Orthodontic Therapy. J. Orofac. Orthop. 2000, 61, 398–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Egolf, R.J.; Begole, E.A.; Upshaw, H.S. Factors associated with orthodontic patient compliance of intraoral elastic and headgear wear. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1990, 97, 336–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flores-Mir, C.; Brandelli, J.; Pacheco-Pereira, C. Patient satisfaction and quality of life status after 2 treatment modalities: Invisalign and conventional fixed appliances. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2018, 154, 639–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, M.; Yan, X.; Zhao, R.; Shan, Y.; Chen, Y.; Jian, H.; Long, W. Comparison of pain perception, anxiety, and impacts on oral health-related quality of life between patients receiving clear aligners and fixed appliances during the initial stage of orthodontic treatment. Eur. J. Orthod. 2021, 43, 353–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gatto, R.C.; Garbin, J.; Corrente, E.; Garbin, C. The relationship between oral health related quality of life, the need for orthodontic treatment and bullying, among Brazilian teenagers. Dent. Press J. Orthod. 2019, 20, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hansa, I.; Semaan, S.J.; Vaid, N.R. Clinical outcomes and patient perspectives of Dental Monitoring GoLive with Invisalign—A retrospective cohort study. Prog. Orthod. 2020, 21, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hansa, I.; Semaan, S.J.; Vaid, N.R.; Ferguson, D.J. Remote monitoring and “Tele-orthodontics”: Concept, scope and applications. Semin. Orthod. 2018, 24, 470–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyun, P.; Preston, C.B.; Al-Jewair, T.S.; Park-Hyun, E.; Tabbaa, S. Patient compliance with Hawley retainers fitted with the SMART® sensor: A prospective clinical pilot study. Angle Orthod. 2015, 85, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, S.-J.; Ahn, S.-J.; Kim, T.-W. Patient compliance and locus of control in orthodontic treatment: A prospective study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2008, 133, 354–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, X.; Xu, Z.-R.; Tang, N.; Ye, C.; Zhu, X.-L. Effect of intervention using a messaging app on compliance and duration of treatment in orthodontic patients. Clin. Oral Investig. 2015, 20, 1849–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, F.; Ren, M.; Yao, L.; Yan, H.; Guo, J.; Ye, Q. Psychosocial impact of dental esthetics regulates motivation to seek orthodontic treatment. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2016, 150, 476–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masood, Y.; Masood, M.; Zainul, N.; Araby, N.; Newton, T. Impact of malocclusion and adolescents’ dissatisfaction with dental appearance and oral functions. Angle Orthod. 2013, 11, 25. [Google Scholar]
- Nedwed, V.; Miethke, R.R. Motivation, acceptance and problems of Invisalign. J. Orofac. Orthop. 2005, 66, 162–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oliver, R.G.; Knapman, Y.M. Attitudes to orthodontic treatment. Br. J. Orthod. 1985, 12, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pabari, S.; Moles, D.R.; Cunningham, S.J. Assessment of motivation and psychological characteristics of adult orthodontic patients. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2011, 140, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pauls, A.; Nienkemper, M.; Panayotidis, A.; Wilmes, B.; Drescher, D. Effects of wear time recording on the patient’s compliance. Angle Orthod. 2013, 83, 1002–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richter, D.D.; Nanda, R.S.; Sinha, P.K.; Smith, D.W.; Currier, G.F. Effect of behavior modification on patient compliance in orthodontics. Angle Orthod. 1998, 68, 123–132. [Google Scholar]
- Schott, T.C.; Goz, G. Color fading of the blue compliance indicator encapsulated in removable clear Invisalign Teen aligners. Angle Orthod. 2011, 81, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sergl, H.G.; Klages, Y.; Zentner, A. Pain and discomfort during orthodontic treatment: Causative factors and effects on compliance. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1998, 114, 684–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spalj, S.; Noxsak, A.; Bilobrk, P.; Katic, V.; Zrinski, M.T.; Pavlic, A. Mediation and moderation effect of the big five personality traits on the relationship between self-perceived malocclusion and psychosocial impact of dental esthetics. Angle Orthod. 2016, 86, 413–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Timm, L.H.; Farrag, G.; Baxmann, M.; Schwendicke, F. Factors Influencing Patient Compliance during Clear Aligner Therapy: A Retrospective Cohort Study. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 3103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tsomos, G.; Ludwig, B.; Grossen, J.; Pazera, P.; Gkantidis, N. Objective assessment of patient compliance with removable orthodontic appliances. A cross-sectional cohor study. Angle Orthod. 2014, 84, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tuncay, O.C.; Bowman, S.J.; Nicozisis, J.L.; Amy, B.D. Effectiveness of a compliance indicator for clear aligners. J. Clin. Orthod. 2009, 43, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Zotti, F.; Dalessandri, D.; Salgarello, S.; Piancino, M.; Bonetti, S.; Visconti, L.; Paganelli, C. Usefulness of an app in improving oral hygiene compliance in adolescent orthodontic patients. Angle Orthod. 2014, 86, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fleming, P.S.; Scott, P.; DiBiase, A.T. Compliance: Getting the Most from your Orthodontic Patient. Dent. Update 2007, 34, 565–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alley, T.R. Social and Applied Aspects of Perceiving Faces; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Gross, A.M.; Samson, G.; Dierkes, M. Patient cooperation in treatment with removable appliances: A model of patient noncompliance with treatment implications. Am. J. Orthod. 1985, 87, 392–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azaripour, A.; Weusmann, J.; Mahmoodi, B.; Peppas, A.; Gerhold-Ay, A.; Noorden, C.J.F.; Willershausen, B. Braces versus Invisalign: Gingival parameters and patients’ satisfaction during treatment: A cross sectional study. BMC Oral Health 2015, 15, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Borda, A.F.; Garfinkle, J.S.; Covell, D.A.; Wang, M.; Doyle, L.; Sedgley, C.M. Outcome assessment of orthodontic clear aligner vs fixed appliance treatment in a teenage population with mild malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2020, 90, 485–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lanteri, V.; Farronato, G.; Lanteri, C.; Caravita, R.; Cossellu, G. The efficacy of orthodntic treatments for anterior crowding with Invisalign compared with fixed appliances using the Peer Assessment Rating Index. Quintessence Int. 2018, 49, 581–587. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Tepedino, M.; Iancu-Potrubacz, M.; Ciavarella, D.; Masedu, F.; Marchione, L.; Chimenti, C. Expansion of permanent first molars with rapid maxillary expansion appliance anchored on primary second molars. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2018, 10, e241–e247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kankam, H.; Madari, S.; Sawh-Martinez, R.; Bruckman, K.C.; Steinbacher, D.M. Comparing Outcomes in Orthognatic Surgery Using Clear Aligners Versus Conventional Fixed Appliances. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2019, 30, 1488–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Nadawi, M.; Kravitz, N.D.; Hansa, I.; Makki, L.; Ferguson, D.J.; Vaid, N.R. Effect of clear aligner wear protocol on the efficacy of tooth movement: A randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2021, 91, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schott, T.C.; Goz, G. Young patients’ attitudes towards removable appliance wear times, wear-time instructions and electronic wear-time measurements-results of a questionnaire study. J. Orofac. Orthop. 2010, 71, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Weiss, J.; Diserens, D. Health behavior of dental professionals. Clin. Prev. Dent. 1980, 2, 5–8. [Google Scholar]
- Yassir, A.; Mclntyre, G.T.; Bearn, D.R. The impact of labial fixed appliance orthodontic treatment on patient expectation, experience, and satisfaction: An overview of systematic reviews. Eur. J. Orthod. 2020, 42, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witt, E.; Bartsch, A.; Sahm, G. Recommended times for wearing removable appliances- the results of a survey. J. Orofac. Orthop. 1992, 53, 124–130. [Google Scholar]
- Kyriacou, P.A.; Jones, D.P. Compliance monitor for use with removable orthodontic headgear appliances. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 1997, 35, 57–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Palma, E.; di Giuseppe, B.; Tepedino, M.; Chimenti, C. Orthodontic management of bilateral maxillary canine-first premolar transposition and bilateral agenesis of maxillary lateral incisors: A case report. Dental Press J. Orthod. 2015, 20, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Savage, M. A preliminary report into the development and use of soluble controlled-release glass timing discs implanted into orthodontic appliances. Br. J. Orthod. 1982, 9, 190–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cureton, S.L.; Regennitter, F.; Orbell, M.G. An accurate, inexpensive headgear timer. J. Clin. Orthod. 1991, 25, 749–754. [Google Scholar]
- Schott, T.C.; Goz, G. Applicative Characteristics of New Microelectronic Sensors Smart Retainer® and TheraMon® for Measuring Wear Time. J. Orofac. Orthop. 2010, 71, 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ackerman, M.B.; McRae, M.S.; Longley, W.H. Microsensor technology to help monitor removable appliance wear. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2009, 135, 549–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jampani, N.D.; Nutalapati, R.; Dontula, B.S.K.; Boyapati, R. Applications of teledentistry: A literature review and update. J. Int. Soc. Prev. Community Dent. 2011, 1, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Park, J.H.; Rogowski, L.; Kim, J.H.; Al Shami, S.; Howell, S.E.I. Teledentistry platforms for orthodontics. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2021, 45, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansa, I.; Katyal, V.; Ferguson, D.J.; Vaid, N. Outcomes of clear aligner treatment with and without Dental Monitoring: A retrospective cohort study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2021, 4, 453–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maspero, C.; Abate, A.; Cavagnetto, D.; El Morsi, M.; Fama, A.; Farronato, M. Available Technologies, Applications and Benefits of Teleorthodontics. A Literature Review and Possible Applications during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lombardo, G.; Vena, F.; Negri, P.; Pagano, S.; Barilotti, C.; Paglia, L.; Colombo, S.; Orso, M.; Cianetti, S. Worldwide Prevalence of malocclusion in the different stages of dentition: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2020, 21, 115–122. [Google Scholar]
- Occasi, F.; Perri, L.; Saccucci, M.; di Carlo, G.; Ierardo, G.; Luzzi, V.; de Castro, G.; Brindisi, G.; Loffredo, L.; Duse, M.; et al. Malocclusion and rhinitis in children: An easy-going relationship or a yet to be resolved paradox? A systematic literature revision. Ital. J. Pediatr. 2018, 22, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- De Felice, F.; Di Carlo, G.; Saccucci, M.; Tombolini, V.; Polimeni, A. Dental Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Children: Clinical Effectiveness and Cancer Risk due to Radiation Exposure. Oncology 2019, 4, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Study | Setting Description | Description of the Participants | Sample Size | Variables | Outcome Data | Statistical Analysis | Overall Quality (0–6) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arreghini et al., 2016 [12] | + | + | + | + | − | − | 4 |
Bartsch et al., 1993 [3] | − | + | + | − | + | + | 4 |
Beckwith et al., 1999 [9] | + | + | + | − | − | − | 3 |
Bos et al., 2005 [13] | − | − | − | + | + | + | 3 |
Bos et al., 2007 [14] | + | + | + | + | + | − | 5 |
Brandao et al., 2006 [15] | + | + | + | + | + | − | 5 |
Brierley et al., 2017 [16] | + | + | + | + | + | − | 5 |
Casutt et al., 2007 [4] | + | + | − | − | + | + | 4 |
Cucalon et al., 1990 [17] | + | + | + | − | + | + | 5 |
Dalessandri et al., 2021 [18] | + | − | + | − | + | + | 4 |
Doll et al., 2000 [19] | + | + | + | + | + | + | 6 |
Egolf et al., 1990 [20] | + | + | + | − | − | − | 3 |
El-Huni et al., 2019 [8] | + | + | − | − | − | − | 2 |
Flores-Mir et al., 2018 [21] | - | − | + | + | + | + | 4 |
Gao et al., 2021 [22] | + | - | + | - | + | + | 4 |
Gatto et al., 2019 [23] | + | + | + | - | + | - | 4 |
Hansa et al., 2020 [24] | + | - | + | + | + | + | 5 |
Hansa et al., 2021 [25] | + | - | + | + | + | + | 5 |
Hyun et al., 2015 [26] | − | + | − | + | + | − | 3 |
Lee et al., 2008 [27] | + | + | − | − | − | − | 2 |
Li et al., 2015 [28] | + | + | + | + | + | + | 6 |
Lin et al., 2016 [29] | + | + | + | + | − | + | 5 |
Masood et al., 2013 [30] | + | + | + | + | − | − | 4 |
Nanda et al., 1992 [1] | + | + | + | − | + | + | 5 |
Nedwed et al., 2005 [31] | + | + | + | − | + | + | 5 |
Oliver et al., 1985 [32] | + | + | − | − | + | − | 3 |
Pabari et al., 2011 [33] | + | + | + | + | + | − | 5 |
Pauls et al., 2013 [34] | − | + | − | − | + | + | 3 |
Prabakaran et al., 2012 [7] | + | + | + | − | + | + | 5 |
Richter et al., 1998 [35] | − | − | − | + | − | + | 2 |
Schafer et al., 2005 [11] | + | + | − | − | + | + | 4 |
Schott et al., 2010 [36] | − | + | − | − | − | + | 2 |
Sergl et al., 1998 [37] | + | + | + | − | − | − | 3 |
Skidmore et al., 2006 [10] | + | + | + | − | + | + | 5 |
Spalj et al., 2016 [38] | − | − | − | + | + | + | 3 |
Timm et al., 2021 [39] | + | + | + | + | + | + | 6 |
Tsomos et al., 2014 [40] | − | − | − | + | + | + | 3 |
Tuncay et al., 2009 [41] | − | + | − | − | + | − | 3 |
Zotti et al., 2014 [42] | + | + | + | − | − | − | 3 |
Authors | Year | Country | Type of Study | Sample | Conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arreghini et al. [12] | 2016 | Italy | Prospective cohort study | 30 patients | Monitoring systems may be a valuable means of providing a dentist with objective information regarding their patients’ compliance. |
Bartsch et al. [3] | 1993 | Germany | Prospective cohort study | 77 patients | Better compliance was found in patients who felt accepted and comfortable during the treatment session. |
Beckwith et al. [9] | 1999 | USA | Retrospective cross-sectional study | 140 patients | Developing an objective assessment of factors that influence orthodontic treatment duration may be important for increasing the understanding of treatment time variation. |
Bos et al. [13] | 2005 | Netherlands | Prospective cross-sectional study | 466 patients | Previously treated patients were found to have a significantly more positive attitude towards orthodontists than untreated patients. |
Bos et al. [14] | 2007 | Netherlands | Prospective study | 56 patients | Patients tend to overestimate their compliance. |
Brandao et al. [15] | 2006 | Brazil | Prospective study | 21 patients | Patients overreport compliance. Patient compliance increases from 57 to 63% with a monitoring system. |
Brierley et al. [16] | 2017 | UK | Prospective pilot study | 5 patients | The adjustment of the TheraMon® microsensor software parameters would improve accuracy. |
Casutt et al. [4] | 2007 | Germany | Retrospective multicenter study | 222 patients | The success of early orthodontic treatment with removable appliances is highly dependent on patient compliance. |
Cucalon et al. [17] | 1990 | USA | Prospective study | 252 patients | Higher compliance was found among females, those with a higher self-esteem, and more optimistic patients. |
Dalessandri et al. [18] | 2021 | Italy | Prospective cross-sectional study | 160 patients | Both patients and doctors judged telemonitoring positively, considering it a technologically advanced tool capable of increasing the perception of the quality and accuracy of the treatment. |
Doll et al. [19] | 2000 | Germany | Prospective cohort study | 67 patients | Appliance acceptance is determined by both attitude and discomfort. |
Egolf et al. [20] | 1990 | USA | Prospective cross-sectional study | 100 patients | Combinations of personality type, negative motives (pain, inconvenience, dysfunction), and positive motives (general health awareness, specific dental knowledge, personal oral embarrassment) were found to be factors correlated with compliance. |
Flores-Mir et al. [21] | 2018 | Canada | Prospective cross-sectional study | 122 patients | Patients treated with Invisalign reported more satisfaction than those treated with brackets. |
Gao et al. [22] | 2021 | China | Prospective clinical trial | 110 patients | Patients treated with clear aligners experienced lower pain levels, less anxiety and a higher OHRQoL compared to those receiving fixed appliances. |
Gatto et al. [23] | 2019 | Brazil | Prospective cross-sectional study | 815 patients | The need for orthodontic treatment was not associated with OHRQoL. |
Hansa et al. [24] | 2020 | Australia | Retrospective study | 215 patients | Monitoring decreases treatment duration and in-office appointments. |
Hansa et al. [25] | 2021 | Australia | Retrospective study | 90 patients | Monitoring decreases treatment duration and in-office appointments. |
Hyun et al. [26] | 2015 | USA | Prospective pilot study | 22 patients | Patients aware of themselves being monitored were more compliant. |
Li et al. [28] | 2015 | China | Randomized controlled | 240 patients | Messaging apps increase compliance and decrease treatment duration. |
Lin et al. [29] | 2016 | China | Prospective clinical trial | 393 patients | The psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics plays and important role in the decision-making process of adults seeking orthodontic treatment. |
Masood et al. [30] | 2013 | Malaysia | Prospective cross-sectional study | 323 patients | Malocclusion has a negative impact on OHRQoL. |
Nanda et al. [1] | 1992 | USA | Prospective cohort study | 100 patients | Improving communication is important to salvage a potentially uncooperative patient. |
Nedwed et al. [31] | 2005 | Germany | Prospective cohort study | 54 patients | If the indication has been correctly established, Invisalign therapy can be a source of great satisfaction for both the patient and physician. |
Oliver et al. [32] | 1985 | Wales | Prospective cross-sectional study | 100 patients | Pain from the appliances and its appearance are the main discouraging features during orthodontic treatment. |
Pabari et al. [33] | 2011 | UK | Prospective cohort study | 172 patients | Self-esteem and facial body image scores were higher among patients who had completed treatment than among those who had not. |
Pauls et al. [34] | 2013 | Germany | Retrospective cohort study | 32 patients | Patients tend to overestimate their wear times but become more realistic once they know wear time is being monitored. |
Prabakaran et al. [7] | 2012 | UK | Prospective cohort study | 60 patients | Most parents placed a high importance on seeking treatment for their child while he or she was still growing to prevent future problems. |
Schafer et al. [11] | 2015 | Germany | Prospective cross-sectional study | 141 patients | The daily wear time of removable appliances during the active phase of orthodontic therapy can be quantified using integrated microelectronic sensors. |
Sergl et al. | 1998 | Germany | Prospective cohort study | 84 patients | The acceptance of orthodontic treatment in general may be predicted by the amount of initial pain and discomfort experienced. |
Skidmore et al. [10] | 2006 | New Zealand | Retrospective cross-sectional study | 366 patients | It is possible to predict the estimated treatment time for a patient by using a small number of personal characteristics and treatment decisions. |
Spalj et al. [38] | 2016 | Croatia | Prospective cross-sectional study | 252 patients | Adolescents and young adults with lower agreeableness and conscientiousness seem to be less affected by the increased severity of self-perceived malocclusion, as demonstrated in the reporting of some psychosocial impacts. |
Timm et al. [39] | 2021 | Germany | Retrospective cross-sectional study | 2644 patients | A total of 36% of the patients were fully compliant, 38.3% of them showed fair compliance, and 25.7% showed poor compliance. |
Tsomos et al. [40] | 2014 | Switzerland | Prospective cohort study | 45 patients | Objective measures are necessary to assess compliance with removable orthodontic appliances, since patient compliance is a highly variable issue. |
Tuncay et al. [41] | 2009 | USA | Prospective cohort study | 14 patients | The color compliance indicator has considerable promise for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of orthodontic treatment with clear aligners. |
Zotti et al. [42] | 2014 | Italy | Prospective cohort study | 80 patients | The weekly sharing of selfies of patients’ smiles in a WhatsApp-based chat room contest is an effective and long-lasting way to improve oral hygiene compliance among adolescent orthodontic patients. |
“Appliance-Related” | “Patient-Related” | “Clinician-Related” |
---|---|---|
Type of appliance (poor/good aesthetic; visible/invisible) [19] | Age [3,40] | Trust, honesty, and loyalty [5,35] |
Level of pain and discomfort [20,32] | Personality traits [3] | Complete and clear communication [5] |
- | Importance of aesthetics [44] | Motivation [33] |
- | Perception of malocclusion [23] | - |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Torsello, F.; D’Amico, G.; Staderini, E.; Marigo, L.; Cordaro, M.; Castagnola, R. Factors Influencing Appliance Wearing Time during Orthodontic Treatments: A Literature Review. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 7807. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12157807
Torsello F, D’Amico G, Staderini E, Marigo L, Cordaro M, Castagnola R. Factors Influencing Appliance Wearing Time during Orthodontic Treatments: A Literature Review. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(15):7807. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12157807
Chicago/Turabian StyleTorsello, Ferruccio, Giorgia D’Amico, Edoardo Staderini, Luca Marigo, Massimo Cordaro, and Raffaella Castagnola. 2022. "Factors Influencing Appliance Wearing Time during Orthodontic Treatments: A Literature Review" Applied Sciences 12, no. 15: 7807. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12157807