International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 5 ( September-October, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ABSTRACT

Evaluation of Children's Attitude toward Conventional Removable Appliances and Novel Vivid Pedo Appliances: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Keywords : Acceptance, Attractive, Children, Colourful, Compliance, Randomized clinical trial, Removable appliance

Citation Information : Evaluation of Children's Attitude toward Conventional Removable Appliances and Novel Vivid Pedo Appliances: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2023; 16 (5):786-791.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2670

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 10-11-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To evaluate and compare acceptability and compliance toward conventional removable appliances and novel vivid pedo appliances in 5–12-year-old children. Materials and methods: A total of 46 children who required treatment with a removable appliance such as a removable orthodontic appliance, habit-breaking appliance, myofunctional appliance, or functional and nonfunctional space maintainers were randomized to either group I—a conventional removable appliance or group II—vivid pedo appliance (colorful/attractive removable appliance). After diagnosis and treatment plan, the appropriate removable appliance was fabricated using plain pink self-cure acrylic in groups I and II, and it was fabricated using clear self-cure acrylic adding colors, designs, and stickers according to the child's preference. Questionnaires were administered to evaluate the acceptability and compliance toward removable appliance therapy on the day of appliance delivery after 1 and 6 months. Result: Acceptance and compliance of vivid pedo appliance was more in children compared to conventional removable appliances. The difference was statistically significant. Conclusion: Vivid pedo appliance improved children's acceptance and compliance toward removable appliance therapy. Clinical significance: Removable appliances are an inevitable part of pediatric dentistry right from the movement of teeth, influencing tooth eruption as well as growth of jaws. The success of removable appliance therapy mostly depends on children's compliance. Therefore, the goal of this study was to ascertain how the esthetic attractiveness of an appliance influences the acceptability of a removable appliance and how it reflects on entire compliance toward removable appliance therapy.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Tsomos G, Ludwig B, Grossen J, et al. Objective assessment of patient compliance with removable orthodontic appliances: a cross-sectional cohort study. Angle Orthod 2014;84(1):56–61. DOI: 10.2319/042313-315.1
  2. Pratt MC, Kluemper GT, Hartsfield JK Jr, et al. Evaluation of retention protocols among members of the American Association of Orthodontists in the United States. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2011;140(4):520–526. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.10.023
  3. Mortensen MG, Kiyak HA, Omnell L. Patient and parent understanding of informed consent in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2003;124(5):541–550. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00639-5
  4. Schott TC, Menne D. How patient-selected colors for removable appliances are reflected in electronically tracked compliance (wear times and wear behavior). Angle Orthod 2018;88(4):458–464. DOI: 10.2319/101617-700.1
  5. Amin E, Bangash AA. Removable orthodontic appliances and patient perceived problems. Pak Arm Force Med J 2020;70(1):101–105.
  6. Godoy F, Godoy-Bezerra J, Rosenblatt A. Treatment of posterior crossbite comparing 2 appliances: a community-based trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139(1):e45– e52. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.06.017
  7. Miethke RR, Wronski C. What can be achieved with removable orthodontic appliances? J Orofac Orthop 2009;70(3):185–199. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-009-0818-x
  8. Petren S, Bjerklin K, Marke LA, et al. Early correction of posterior crossbite—a cost-minimization analysis. Eur J Orthod 2013;35(1): 14–21. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr047
  9. Tai K, Park JH, Mishima K, et al. 3-Dimensional conebeam computed tomography analysis of transverse changes with Schwarz appliances on both jaws. Angle Orthod 2011;81:670–677. DOI: 10.2319/110910-655.1
  10. Varlik SK, Gultan A, Tumer N. Comparison of the effects of twin block and activator treatment on the soft tissue profile. Eur J Orthod 2008;30(2):128–134. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjm121
  11. Klages U, Sergl HG. Theoretical approaches for improved motivation of orthodontic patients. Fortschr Kieferorthop 1987;48(2):112–116. DOI: 10.1007/BF02175613
  12. Torsello F, D'Amico G, Staderini E, et al. Factors influencing appliance wearing time during orthodontic treatments: a literature review. Appl Sci 2022;12(15):7807. DOI; 10.3390/app12157807
  13. Walton DK, Fields HW, Johnston WM, et al. Orthodontic appliance preferences of children and adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138(6):698.e1–612. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.06.012
  14. Abu EA, Karajeh MA. Acceptability and attractiveness of intra-and extra-oral orthodontic appliances. Int J Orthod Milwaukee 2013;24(1):11–17.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.