- •We investigated the association between overjet reduction and wear time.
- •Significant overjet reduction was achieved with a daily wear time of 8 hours.
- •Significant overjet reduction was achieved in a treatment period of at least 5 months.
- •A daily wear time of less than 8 hours showed no significant overjet reduction.
- •No patient achieved the prescribed wear time of 12 hour per day.
Purchase one-time access:PDF Download and 24 Hours Online Access
Subscribe:Subscribe to American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
- Dentofacial orthopedics with functional appliances.2nd ed. Mosby, St Louis1997
- Growth and treatment changes in patients treated with a headgear-activator appliance.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 121: 376-384
- Orthodontic and orthopedic effects of Activator, Activator-HG combination, and Bass appliances: a comparative study.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996; 110: 36-45
- Class II: a comparison of activator and activator headgear combination appliances.Eur J Orthod. 1994; 16: 149-157
- Comparative evaluation of a new removable Jasper jumper functional appliance vs an activator-headgear combination.Angle Orthod. 2003; 73: 286-293
- The initial effects of the treatment of Class II, division 1 malocclusions with the van Beek activator compared with the effects of the Herren activator and an activator-headgear combination.Eur J Orthod. 1998; 20: 389-397
- Initial effects of treatment of Class II malocclusion with the Herren activator, activator-headgear combination, and Jasper jumper.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; 112: 19-27
- Craniofacial adaptation of protrusive function in young rhesus monkeys.Am J Orthod. 1972; 62: 469-480
- Long-term effect of treatment with the headgear-Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition. Stability or relapse?.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 104: 319-329
- Treatment of Class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance. A cephalometric investigation.Am J Orthod. 1979; 76: 423-442
- Long-term effects of Class II correction in Herbst and Bass therapy.Eur J Orthod. 1997; 19: 185-193
- Occlusal changes during and after Herbst treatment: a cephalometric investigation.Eur J Orthod. 1986; 8: 215-228
- Intensive treatment of severe Class II malocclusions with a headgear-Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition.Am J Orthod. 1984; 86: 1-13
- Combination headgear-activator.J Clin Orthod. 1984; 18: 185-189
- Overjet correction by a combined headgear and activator.Eur J Orthod. 1982; 4: 279-290
- Comparison of the headgear activator and Herbst appliance—effects and post-treatment changes.Eur J Orthod. 2006; 28: 594-604
- Dentoskeletal effects and “effective” temporomandibular joint, maxilla and chin changes in good and bad responders to van Beek activator treatment.Angle Orthod. 2007; 77: 64-72
- Microelectronic wear-time documentation of removable orthodontic devices detects heterogeneous wear behavior and individualizes treatment planning.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 146: 155-160
- Quantifying patient adherence during active orthodontic treatment with removable appliances using microelectronic wear-time documentation.Eur J Orthod. 2015; 37: 73-80
- The wear-timing measuring device in orthodontics—cui bono? Reflections on the state-of-the-art in wear-timing measurement and compliance research in orthodontics.Fortschr Kieferorthop. 1991; 52: 117-125
- Micro-electronic monitoring of functional appliance wear.Eur J Orthod. 1990; 12: 297-301
- Quantification of patient compliance with Hawley retainers and removable functional appliances during the retention phase.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144: 533-540
- Effects of wear time recording on the patient's compliance.Angle Orthod. 2013; 83: 1002-1008
- Objective assessment of patient compliance with removable orthodontic appliances: a cross-sectional cohort study.Angle Orthod. 2014; 84: 56-61
- Accuracy of patient reporting as an indication of headgear compliance.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 121: 419-423
- Relations between verbal behavior of the orthodontist and communicative cooperation of the patient in regular orthodontic visits.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992; 102: 265-269
- Comparing subjective and objective measures of headgear compliance.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132: 801-805
- Wearing times of orthodontic devices as measured by the TheraMon® microsensor.J Orofac Orthop. 2011; 72: 103-110
- Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling Tests.J Stat Modeling Analytics. 2011; 2: 21-33
- The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159-174
- Dentofacial growth changes in subjects with untreated Class II malocclusion from late puberty through young adulthood.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135: 148-154
- Longitudinal growth changes in untreated subjects with Class II Division 1 malocclusion.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134: 125-137
- Posttreatment compliance with removable maxillary retention in a teenage population: a short-term randomized clinical trial.Orthodontics (Chic.). 2011; 12: 22-27
- Relationship between patient discomfort, appliance acceptance and compliance in orthodontic therapy.J Orofac Orthop. 2000; 61: 398-413
- Functional and social discomfort during orthodontic treatment—effects on compliance and prediction of patients' adaptation by personality variables.Eur J Orthod. 2000; 22: 307-315
All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest, and none were reported.