dc.contributor.author | Kutay, Cansin | |
dc.contributor.author | Sayar, Gulsilay | |
dc.contributor.author | Kilicoglu, Hulya | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-12-10T12:21:29Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-12-10T12:21:29Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Kutay C., Kilicoglu H., Sayar G., "Comparison of objective wear time between monoblock and twin-block appliances measured by microsensor", ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, cilt.91, sa.6, ss.749-755, 2021 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0003-3219 | |
dc.identifier.other | av_b7440cc9-5478-4bff-8a84-4467c9dacde3 | |
dc.identifier.other | vv_1032021 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12627/173719 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.2319/021421-128.1 | |
dc.description.abstract | Objectives: To assess the objective compliance levels in skeletal Class II patients with mandibular retrognathia wearing monoblock and twin-block appliances. Materials and Methods: A prospective clinical study was conducted with 30 patients between 10 and 15 years old who were equally divided into two study groups. Group 1 was treated with monoblock, and group 2 was treated with twin-block appliances. The patients were instructed to wear their appliance for 15 hours per day. Wear times were monitored by a microsensor. (TheraMon; MCTechnology, Hargelsberg, Austria) for an average of six appointments. Patients were also instructed to record their wear times on a chart, and this record was admitted as subjective wear time. Statistical analysis was performed with the data derived from both the patients' charts and the monitoring records. Results: The mean wear time by the patients was 10.67 6 3.93 hours, which was less than the 15 hours prescribed by the orthodontist, with no difference between the two appliances (P . .05). The regular use rate, which included the days with a wear time of 8 hours or more per day, was 75%. Compliance levels decreased by 35% throughout the six control appointments. Patients declared that their wear time was more than their objective wear time by an average of 3.76 hours. Conclusions: Despite their different designs, there was no significant difference between the monoblock and twin-block appliances in terms of compliance. (Angle Orthod. 2021;91:749-755.) | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.subject | Dentistry (miscellaneous) | |
dc.subject | Dental Hygiene | |
dc.subject | Periodontics | |
dc.subject | Dental Assisting | |
dc.subject | General Dentistry | |
dc.subject | Health Sciences | |
dc.subject | Orthodontics | |
dc.subject | Oral Surgery | |
dc.subject | Diş Hekimliği | |
dc.subject | Sağlık Bilimleri | |
dc.subject | Tıp | |
dc.subject | Klinik Tıp (MED) | |
dc.subject | Klinik Tıp | |
dc.subject | DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ, ORAL CERRAHİ VE TIP | |
dc.title | Comparison of objective wear time between monoblock and twin-block appliances measured by microsensor | |
dc.type | Makale | |
dc.relation.journal | ANGLE ORTHODONTIST | |
dc.contributor.department | , , | |
dc.identifier.volume | 91 | |
dc.identifier.issue | 6 | |
dc.identifier.startpage | 749 | |
dc.identifier.endpage | 755 | |
dc.contributor.firstauthorID | 2758172 | |