Author: Eric Eldon RobertsPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Orthodontics
Languages : en
Pages :
Book Description
Patient Compliance and Non Compliance in Orthodontic Treatment
Author: Eric Eldon RobertsPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Orthodontics
Languages : en
Pages :
Book Description
Orthodontic Treatment of the Class II Noncompliant Patient
Author: Moschos A. PapadopoulosPublisher: Elsevier Health Sciences
ISBN: 0723433917
Category : Medical
Languages : en
Pages : 413
Book Description
Section I CLASS II ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT AND COMPLIANCE 1. The problem of compliance in orthodontics 2. Classification of the non-compliance appliances used for Class II correction Section II NTER-MAXILLARY APPLIANCES USED FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF CLASS II NON-COMPLIANT PATIENTS 3. Overview of the inter-maxillary non-compliance appliances 4. The Herbst appliance 5. The Cantilever Bite Jumper 6. The Ritto Appliance(R) 7. The Mandibular Protraction 8. The Mandibular Anterior Repositioning Appliance 9. Energy management: The philosophy behind fixed intermaxillary mechanics 10. The Jasper Jumper 11. The Flex Developer 12. The Eureka Spring 13. The Twin Force Bite Corrector in the correction of Class II malocclusion in adolescent patients 14. The Sabbagh Universal Spring Section III INTRA-MAXILLARY DISTALIZATION APPLIANCES USED FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF CLASS II NON-COMPLIANT PATIENTS 15. Overview of the intra-maxillary non-compliance distalization appliances 16. The Pendulum appliance 17. The Penguin Pendulum 18. Non-compliance Class II treatment with the Distal JetAldo Carano 19. The Keles Slider appliance for bilateral and unilateral maxillary molar distalization 20. The Jones Jig and modifications 21. The use of magnets for maxillary molar distalization 22. The First Class appliance 23. An effective and precise method for rapid molar derotation Section IV INTRA-MAXILLARY APPLIANCES WITH ABSOLUTE ANCHORAGE USED FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF CLASS II MALOCCLUSION 24. Overview of the intra-maxillary non-compliance appliances with absolute anchorage 25. The use of implants as absolute anchorage for Class II correction 26. The use of onplants for maxillary molar distalization Section V CLINICAL EFFICACY OF THE NON-COMPLIANCE APPLIANCES 27. Clinical efficacy of the non-compliance appliances used for Class II orthodontic correction.
Creating the Compliant Patient
Author: James A. McNamaraPublisher: University of Michigan Press
ISBN:
Category : Medical
Languages : en
Pages : 216
Book Description
Patient Compliance
Author: Deepti BhardwajPublisher: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing
ISBN: 9783330330337
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 64
Book Description
Patient compliance in orthodontics has always been an important concern for an efficient and effective treatment. Patient cooperation is basically a matter of patient's self-consciousness regarding their perceived dental disfigurement. The current book provides a contemporary outlook on how patient adherence influences the overall orthodontic treatment outcome and also emphasises on the knowledge regarding prediction of compliance during the treatment course. This could also be helpful to anticipate problems that might arise during the treatment and alleviate them before they impede or interfere with the same.
Patient Factors Affecting Compliance with Orthodontic Treatment
Author: Erin R. Kazmierski-FurnoPublisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Book Description
Non-compliance Distalization
Author: Moschos A. PapadopoulosPublisher:
ISBN: 9789606305900
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 104
Book Description
Patient Compliance with Orthodontic Removable Retainers
Author: Paul HyunPublisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 41
Book Description
The retention phase of orthodontic treatment remains to be one of the most important but most poorly monitored stages of treatment. Although cooperative orthodontic removable retainer wear relies on patient compliance, actual retainer wear times may be improved with the usage of a microsensor that promotes active involvement from the patient. Recently, the innovation of Smart™ microsensors by Scientific Compliance may allow orthodontists to monitor actual retainer wear time, and prescribe data-driven recommendations to their patients. The objective of this study was to compare retainer wear of 22 patients, with one group aware of the Smart™ microsensor, and the other group unaware. The sample in this pilot study consisted of twenty-two (22) patients (13 females and 9 males) treated and debonded at the Orthodontic clinic at the State University of New York at Buffalo. The patients were divided to Group A (5 females and 4 males) and Group B (8 females and 5 males). Group A (treatment group) was informed that they would be monitored through the usage of the Smart™ microsensor. Group B (control group) was not informed that they had the Smart™ microsensor present in their appliances. Both groups had the same retainer with Smart™ microsensor, the only difference being that one group was blinded of the microsensor's presence. For the purposes of this study, T0 was the retainer delivery appointment, T1 was the 6 weeks follow-up appointment, and T2 was the 12 weeks follow-up appointment. At T1, group B was informed of all aspects of the study including our capability to monitor their retainer wear. During the first phase of the study (T0 to T1), the average hours per day of use for the aware group was 16. 3 (SD=4. 39), while in the non-aware group it was 10. 6 (SD=5. 36). This difference of 5. 7 hours per day was statistically significant (t=2. 426, p=0. 027). Although the non-aware group increased their retainer wear by 0. 5 hour per day from T1 to T2, it was not statistically significant. Even though 89% of all subjects reported positive levels of comfort with the Smart™ retainer, the microsensor increased the palatal acrylic thickness to about 7-11mm, as supposed to palatal thicknesses of normal retainers, which are around 3mm. Presently, the Smart™ microsensor seems to provide a valid way to measure retainer wear time. However, improvements in the functionality and the dimensions of the unit could pave the way to a more promising future, where orthodontic relapse could be kept to a minimum, and the results of orthodontic treatment could be maintained for longer periods of time.
The Effect of Patient Compliance on Orthodontic Outcomes
Author: Steven Daniel MelnicOrthodontic Patient Compliance as a Function of Learning Styles
Author: Anna Steed VeilandsTreatment Outcomes and Retention in Medicaid and Non-Medicaid Orthodontic Patients
Author: Ashkan GhaffariPublisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :
Book Description
Medicaid orthodontic patients have been shown to miss more appointments and break more appliances than self-pay patients, indicating a greater tendency toward non-compliance. Lack of compliance during the post-treatment phase can be detrimental to retention. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in PAR score changes between Medicaid and non-Medicaid patients during and after orthodontic treatment. PAR scores were determined using study models of 43 Medicaid and 39 non-Medicaid patients before and at the end of active treatment, and 24 Medicaid and 42 non-Medicaid patients at the end of treatment and at an average of 13 months post-treatment. PAR scores generally reduce during treatment and will increase if relapse occurs. Rates of PAR score change during and after treatment were compared between Medicaid and non-Medicaid patients using the Mann-Whitney U-test. The mean initial PAR score was greater in the Medicaid group (31.95 versus 23.28; p=0.003) while there was no significant difference found between the two groups for the end of treatment PAR scores (3.22 versus 2.93; p=0.451). The rates of PAR score improvement during treatment (14.07/year versus 12.14/year; p=0.203) and worsening after the removal of orthodontic appliances (2.04/year versus 2.91/year; p=0.872) were found not to differ between the two groups. It was found that the rate of PAR score improvement during treatment did not differ between Medicaid and non-Medicaid patients. During the post-treatment period, the rate of PAR score worsening was also found not to differ.