24Dec 2019

PATIENTS AND PARENTS PERCEPTION OF THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF TREATMENT MODALITIES FOR CLASS 2 CORRECTION: A SURVEY BASED STUDY

Crossref Cited-by Linking logo

  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

Objective: To evaluate patients and parents perception of removable functional, fixed functional, and fixed mechanotherapy appliances (braces) and to compare their impacts on anxiety and discomfort during treatment in different age groups and genders. Method: Information was obtained through a questionnaire that included items believed to be consistent with compliance with orthodontics. A survey was used to measure the experiences of patients and family. Three groups were formed: functional removable (RF), functional fixed (FF) and fixed mechanotherapy (braces). For the patients and their families, two different questionnaires were used that included the necessary context. Data analysis was carried out using Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: It took less time for patients to adjust to the Fixed functional system. Patients in the removable group found feeding difficulties. Adolescents with a removable appliance who had undergone effective orthodontic treatment had difficulty controlling their saliva. The expectations of patients and parents were found to be compatible with one another. Conclusion: Adolescents with set equipment who had undergone effective orthodontic treatment had more difficulties with their daily lives. Orthodontists should be mindful of this effect of successful orthodontic treatment and should inspire patients on a regular basis by reminding them of the changes to be made by repairing malocclusion.

  1. Mc Namara JA., Jr Components of Class II malocclusion in children 8?10 years of age. Angle Orthod. 1981;51:177?202. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ackerman JL, Proffit WR. The characteristic of malocclusion: A modem approach to classification and diagnosis. Am J Orthod. 1969;56:443?54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(69)90206-1. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Moore RN, Igel KA, Boice PA. Vertical and horizontal components of functional appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;96:433?43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90329-6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dandajena TC. Hybrid functional appliances for management of Class II malocclusions. In: Nanda R, Kapila S, editors. Current Therapy in Orthodontics. St Louis, Mo: Mosby Elsevier; 2010. pp. 103?13. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-05460-7.00010-7. [Google Scholar]
  5. Pancherz H. History, background, and development of the Herbst appliance. Semin Orthod. 2003;9:3?11. https://doi.org/10.1053/sodo.2003.34020. [Google Scholar]
  6. Pakshir H, Mokhtar A, Darnahal A, Kamali Z, Behesti MH, Jamilian A. Effect of bionator and farmand appliance on the treatment of mandibular deficiency in prepubertal stage. Turkish J Orthod. 2017;30:15?20. https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2017.1604. [Google Scholar]
  7. O?Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjie Y, Mandall N, Chadwick S, et al. Effectiveness of treatment for Class II malocclusion with the Herbst or twin-block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124:128?37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00345-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, McNamara JA. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129:599.e1?12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.11.010. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Koretsi V, Zymperdikas VF, Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA. Treatment effects of removable functional appliances in patients with class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2015;37:418?34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju071. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Akin M, Polat O, Ileri Z, Basciftci FA. Effects of the activator and twin block on facial soft tissue thickness in Class II Division 1 patients. Turkish J Orthod. 2015;27:128?35. https://doi.org/10.13076/TJO-D-14-00020. [Google Scholar]
  11. Johnson PD, Cohen DA, Aiosa L, McGorray S, Wheeler T. Attitudes and compliance of pre-adolescent children during early treatment of Class II malocclusion. Clin Orthod Res. 1998;1:20?8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hedlund C, Feldmann I. Success rate, costs and long-term stability of treatment with activator/headgear combinations. Swed Dent J. 2016;40:67?77. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Idris G, Hajeer MY, Al-Jundi A. Acceptance and discomfort in growing patients during treatment with two functional appliances: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2012;13:219?24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lewis H, Brown WA. The attitude of patients to the wearing of a removable orthodontic appliance. Br Dent J. 1973;134:87?90. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4802964. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Oliver RG, Knapman YM. Attitudes to orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod. 1985;12:179?88. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.12.4.179. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Sergl HG, Zentner A. A comparative assessment of acceptance of different types of functional appliances. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20:517?24. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/20.5.517. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Egolf RJ, BeGole EA, Upshaw HS. Factors associated with orthodontic patient compliance with intraoral elastic and headgear wear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;97:336?48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(90)70106-M. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Doll GM, Zentner A, Klages U, Sergl HG. Relationship between patient discomfort, appliance acceptance and compliance in orthodontic therapy. J Orofac Orthop. 2000;61:398?413. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00001908. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Sergl HG, Klages U, Zentner A. Pain and discomfort during orthodontic treatment: causative factors and effects on compliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;114:684?91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70201-X. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gosney MB. An investigation into factors which may deter patients from undergoing orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod. 1985;12:133?8. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.12.3.133. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Bowman AC, Saltaji H, Flores-Mir C, Preston B, Tabbaa S. Patient experiences with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device. Angle Orthod. 2013;83:437?46. https://doi.org/10.2319/081112-647.1. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. de Oliveira CM, Sheiham A. Orthodontic treatment and its impact on oral health-related quality of life in Brazilian adolescents. J Orthod. 2004;31:20?7. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531204225011364. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, Diguiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, et al. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):MR000008. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.mr000008.pub4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ishaq RA, AlHammadi MS, Fayed M, El-Ezz AA, Mostafa Y. Fixed functional appliances with multibracket appliances have no skeletal effect on the mandible: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149:612?24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.11.023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Čirgić E, Kjellberg H, Hansen K. Discomfort, expectations, and experiences during treatment of large overjet with Andresen Activator or prefabricated functional appliance: a questionnaire survey. Acta Odontol Scand. 2017;75:166?72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016357.2016.1274424. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Heinen M, Kahl-Nieke B, Pies S, Hegmann M, Schwarze CW. A retrospective examination of the acceptance of removable appliances. Fortschr Kieferorthop. 1994;55:290?6. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02285416. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Sergl HG, Klages U, Zentner A. Functional and social discomfort during orthodontic treatment- effects on compliance and prediction of patients? adaptation by personality variables. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22:307?15. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/22.3.307. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Baysal A, Uysal T. Dentoskeletal effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. Eur J Orthod. 2014;36:164?72. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjt013. [PubMed] [Google Scholar].

[Monis Raza, Shubhangi Jain, Swati Sharma, Isha S. Singh, Ankit Shahi and Jasleen Kaur (2019); PATIENTS AND PARENTS PERCEPTION OF THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF TREATMENT MODALITIES FOR CLASS 2 CORRECTION: A SURVEY BASED STUDY Int. J. of Adv. Res. 7 (Dec). 622-632] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

Dr. Monis Raza
Senior Lecturer, Department of Orthodontics, ITS-CDSR,Muradnagar

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/10190      
DOI URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/10190

Download Full Paper

Download PDF No. of Downloads: 17 | No. of Views: 83