| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2013 | Volume
: 1
| Issue : 3 | Page : 83-88 |
|
|
Relative comparison and assessment of patient's attitude and discomfort between two different types of fixed functional appliances: A comprehensive survey
Pooja Gandhi1, Meenu Goel2, Puneet Batra2
1 Dental Surgeon, Woodside Specialty Dental Clinic, 51-23 Queens Blvd, Office Dentist Woodside, NY 11377, USA
2 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Institute of Dental Studies and Technologies, Modinagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
Correspondence Address:
Meenu Goel
Department of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Institute of Dental Studies and Technologies, Modinagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/2321-3825.123317
|
|
|
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the patient's attitude and follow the progress of patient's adaptation to discomfort between two types of fixed functional appliances. Materials and Methods: A total of 16 patients undergoing treatment with either fixed functional appliance, i.e., forsus fatigue resistant device (FFRD) (hybrid) and mandibular protraction appliance (MPA) IV (rigid) rated their experiences during the 1 st day of treatment and after 7 days, 14 days and 30 days of appliance insertion. Results: There were no significant differences in patient's attitude toward both the appliances. Soft-tissue laceration was the most serious side-effect (about 50% in MPA IV and 25% in FFRD). Soft-tissue laceration and other negative effects generally decreased over time. Conclusion: The results of the study indicate that there is no considerable difference in acceptance of FFRD and MPA IV by the patients. Most patients experience some discomfort and functional limitations; however, the effect generally diminishes with time and patients adapt to the appliance. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
