ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2021
Comparison of objective wear time between monoblock and twin-block appliances measured by microsensor.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effect of eruption guidance appliances on occlusal traits: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of orthodontics · 2026Pooled it
- Orthodontic Compliance Assessment: A Systematic Review.International dental journal · 2022Pooled it
- Adolescents' adherence to intraoral removable appliances: a scoping review.Progress in orthodontics · 2025Article
- Patient adherence in orthodontics: a scoping review.BDJ open · 2024Article
- Comparison of part-time and full-time mandibular advancement: enlightenment based on type H vessel coupling osteogenesis.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the objective compliance levels in skeletal Class II patients with mandibular retrognathia wearing monoblock and twin-block appliances. MATERIALS AND
methodsA 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.
resultsThe mean wear time by the patients was 10.67 ± 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.
conclusionsDespite their different designs, there was no significant difference between the monoblock and twin-block appliances in terms of compliance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.