Journals / Turkish Journal of Orthodontics / 2017 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 2

Patients' and Parents' Perception of Functional Appliances: A Survey Study

Pages
33–41
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Orthodontists should be aware of this impact caused by functional orthodontic treatment and should regularly encourage patients by reminding them of the improvements to be had by fixing the malocclusion.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To evaluate patients' and parents' perception of removable, fixed rigid, and fixed hybrid functional appliances and to compare their impacts on anxiety and discomfort during treatment in different age groups and genders.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Two separate questionnaires were used for the patients and their parents comprising the necessary context.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Orthodontists should be aware of this impact caused by functional orthodontic treatment and should regularly encourage patients by reminding them of the improvements to be had by fixing the malocclusion.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate patients' and parents' perception of removable, fixed rigid, and fixed hybrid functional appliances and to compare their impacts on anxiety and discomfort during treatment in different age groups and genders. Methods: Data were gathered by means of a questionnaire that included items presumed to be associated with orthodontic compliance. A self-administered questionnaire was used to quantify patients' and parents' perceptions. Three groups were formed regarding the type of functional appliance used: fixed rigid (Functional Mandibular Advancer, FMA), fixed hybrid (Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device, FRD), and removable (Twin Block, TB). Two separate questionnaires were used for the patients and their parents comprising the necessary context. Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for data analysis. Results: Patients needed less time to adapt to the FRD appliance. Eating difficulties were encountered by patients in the FMA group. Adolescents who had completed functional orthodontic treatment with a removable appliance had difficulties in controlling their saliva. Patients' and parents' perceptions were found to be in accordance with each other. Conclusion: Adolescents who had completed functional orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances had more difficulty in their daily life. Orthodontists should be aware of this impact caused by functional orthodontic treatment and should regularly encourage patients by reminding them of the improvements to be had by fixing the malocclusion.

🔖

Cite This Article

LENA, Y., BOZKURT, A. P., YETKİNER, E. (2017). Patients' and Parents' Perception of Functional Appliances: A Survey Study. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 2, 33–41. https://ajindex.com/articles/374974

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Mc Namara JA Jr. Components of Class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. Angle Orthod 1981; 51: 177-202
  2. Ackerman JL, Proffit WR. The characteristic of malocclusion: A modem approach to classification and diagnosis. Am J Orthod 1969; 56: 443-54. [CrossRef] 3. Moore RN, Igel KA, Boice PA. Vertical and horizontal components of functional appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 96: 433-43. [CrossRef] 4. Dandajena TC. Hybrid functional appliances for management of Class II malocclusions. In: Nanda R, Kapila S, eds. Current Therapy in Orthodontics. St Louis, Mo: Mosby Elsevier; 2010: 103-13. [CrossRef] 5. Pancherz H. History, background, and development of the Herbst appliance. Semin Orthod 2003; 9: 3-11. [CrossRef] 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. [CrossRef] 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. [CrossRef] 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. [CrossRef] 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. [CrossRef] 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. [CrossRef] 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
  3. Hedlund C, Feldmann I. Success rate, costs and long-term stability of treatment with activator/headgear combinations. Swed Dent J 2016; 40: 67-77
  4. 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
  5. Lewis H, Brown WA. The attitude of patients to the wearing o