How patient-selected colors for removable appliances are reflected in electronically tracked compliance (wear times and wear behavior).

OBJECTIVES A broad spectrum of colors for removable appliances, intended to optimize acceptance of treatment and patient cooperation, have been available on the dental market for years. This is the first study to analyze how patient-selected colors are reflected in wear times and wear behavior of removable appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study included 117 children (55 girls and 62 boys) who were treated with active removable plate or functional appliances. All patients were offered to choose from 11 different colors, which were pooled into six groups (black, blue, green, yellow, pink, red) for analysis, or to combine any two to four colors ("multicolored" group) for their appliances. All appliances featured a built-in microsensor (TheraMon; MC Technology, Hargelsberg, Austria) for objective wear-time tracking. Differences between wear times were analyzed using pairwise t tests and Tukey correction. RESULTS The longest median wear times were recorded in the blue and green groups (≈11 h/d) and the shortest ones in the red and pink groups (≈9 h/d), but they were not significantly influenced by the patient-selected colors. The median wear times involved an age-related decrease by 0.56 h/y that was statistically significant ( P = .00005). No gender-specific patterns of wear behavior were observed. CONCLUSIONS Patient-selected colors for removable appliances can presumably improve acceptance of treatment, but they are not associated with statistically significant improvements in wear time or wear behavior.

[1]  K. Mishima,et al.  3-Dimensional cone-beam computed tomography analysis of transverse changes with Schwarz appliances on both jaws. , 2011, The Angle orthodontist.

[2]  E Witt,et al.  Correlates of objective patient compliance with removable appliance wear. , 1993, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[3]  J. Lisson,et al.  A microsensor for monitoring removable-appliance wear. , 2011, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[4]  B. Ludwig,et al.  Quantifying patient adherence during active orthodontic treatment with removable appliances using microelectronic wear-time documentation. , 2015, European journal of orthodontics.

[5]  U. Klages,et al.  [Theoretical approaches for improved motivation of orthodontic patients]. , 1987, Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie.

[6]  N. Tümer,et al.  Comparison of the effects of Twin Block and activator treatment on the soft tissue profile. , 2008, European journal of orthodontics.

[7]  N. Pandis,et al.  Compliance with removable orthodontic appliances and adjuncts: A systematic review and meta‐analysis , 2017, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[8]  P. Pazera,et al.  Objective assessment of patient compliance with removable orthodontic appliances: a cross-sectional cohort study. , 2014, The Angle orthodontist.

[9]  J. Weber,et al.  Quantification of patient compliance with Hawley retainers and removable functional appliances during the retention phase. , 2013, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[10]  Márcia Brandão,et al.  Clinical and quantitative assessment of headgear compliance: a pilot study. , 2006, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[11]  F. Mcdonald,et al.  A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of interventions to improve adherence among orthodontic patients aged 12 to 18. , 2015, The Angle orthodontist.

[12]  B. Prahl-Andersen,et al.  Comparing subjective and objective measures of headgear compliance. , 2007, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[13]  E. J. Clemmer,et al.  Patient cooperation in wearing orthodontic headgear. , 1979, American journal of orthodontics.

[14]  R. Miethke,et al.  What Can Be Achieved with Removable Orthodontic Appliances? , 2009, Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie.

[15]  T. Hothorn,et al.  Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models , 2008, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[16]  D. Fardo,et al.  Evaluation of retention protocols among members of the American Association of Orthodontists in the United States. , 2011, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[17]  D. Drescher,et al.  Effects of wear time recording on the patient's compliance. , 2013, The Angle orthodontist.

[18]  R. Kuitert,et al.  Overjet reduction in relation to wear time with the van Beek activator combined with a microsensor , 2017, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[19]  A. Arreghini,et al.  Objective assessment of compliance with intra- and extraoral removable appliances. , 2017, The Angle orthodontist.

[20]  B. Ludwig,et al.  Microelectronic wear-time documentation of removable orthodontic devices detects heterogeneous wear behavior and individualizes treatment planning. , 2014, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[21]  G. Göz,et al.  Wearing times of orthodontic devices as measured by the TheraMon® microsensor , 2011, Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie.

[22]  A. Rosenblatt,et al.  Treatment of posterior crossbite comparing 2 appliances: a community-based trial. , 2011, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[23]  H. Pancherz,et al.  Success rate and efficiency of activator treatment. , 2007, European journal of orthodontics.

[24]  L. Bondemark,et al.  Early correction of posterior crossbite--a cost-minimization analysis. , 2013, European journal of orthodontics.

[25]  F. Regennitter,et al.  Clinical versus quantitative assessment of headgear compliance. , 1993, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[26]  Timm Cornelius Schott,et al.  Applicative Characteristics of New Microelectronic Sensors Smart Retainer® and TheraMon® for Mea suring Wear Time , 2010, Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie.