[Teacher's questionnaire--a way of finding out psychologic factors in orthodontic diagnosis]

A Comparative Assessment of Acceptance of Different Types of Functional Appliances

Background Modern clinical orthodontics' functional appliances, a well-established modality of treatment, exhibit an amazing diversity of design. Clinical findings show that people have difficulty adjusting to these devices due to their size and unfixed positioning inside the mouth and that patient adaptation may vary based on the type of orthodontic functional appliance employed. Despite the fact that they appear to inflict more pain and soreness than, for example, removable plates, the effects of various orthodontic functional appliances on patients' acclimation have not yet been researched. Aim The current study's goal was to assess how different functional appliances' shapes and designs affected patients' willingness to accept them. Materials and methods About 20 adult volunteers (10 males and 10 females, age 18-32 years) with marked Class II division 1 malocclusion and not familiar with orthodontic appliances were selected as test subjects. Impressions for working casts were taken, and construction bites were prepared for the fabrication of eight functional appliances of various designs for each individual test subject. These appliances had eight design variations. There were three tests: one for speech effects, one for initial acceptance, and one for final acceptance after wearing different scales. Results Overall, the correlation between the quality of speech and pronunciation after wearing the appliance and the type of functional appliance was statistically significant. The quality of speech and pronunciation after wearing the appliance was maximum in frequency range 1 (FR1), while it was minimum in the medium-size activator. The difference was statistically significant (p=0.001). Overall, the correlation between the comfort and acceptability of functional appliances after wearing them and the type of functional appliance was statistically significant. The acceptance of functional appliances after wearing was maximum in FR1, while it was minimum in the medium-size activator. The difference was statistically significant (p=0.001). Overall, the correlation between the type of functional appliance and initial acceptance was significant statistically, with the maximum initial acceptance in medium-sized activators and the minimum initial acceptance in small bionators (p=0.001). Conclusion The study's findings show that patient acceptance of various kinds of functional appliances varies significantly.

Correlates of objective patient compliance with removable appliance wear

Patient compliance is considered a major problem in orthodontics. Yet, to date, few conclusive findings have been noted on determinants and consequences of failing adherence, probably because of method flaws and a lack of objective criteria. By following an outline of conceptual issues and selected research, we considered an investigation into correlates of patient compliance with removable appliance wear. We studied a sample of 77 university clinic patients ages 9 to 14 years over several months by means of psychologic inventories and electronic measurement of removable appliance wear. The actual compliance rate proved to be associated with many variables. Among those, characteristics of the patient and his family background, such as conformity and degree of consistent parental support and supervision are interpreted as determinants of satisfactory adherence, whereas treatment related and interactional correlates, such as duration of treatment, dominance of provider, and interpersonal perceptions, are conceived of in terms of mutually interdependent and/or consequent variables. The factors identified might be paralleled in the wearing of headgear and intraoral elastics that require a similar degree of active patient cooperation. After a critical discussion of our data in the light of previous findings, suggestions are provided for future research along with conclusions for clinical practice.