↓ Skip to main content

How Accurate are TheraMon® Microsensors at Measuring Intraoral Wear-time? Recorded vs. Actual Wear Times in Five Volunteers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthodontics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 307)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
patent
4 patents

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
How Accurate are TheraMon® Microsensors at Measuring Intraoral Wear-time? Recorded vs. Actual Wear Times in Five Volunteers
Published in
Journal of Orthodontics, August 2017
DOI 10.1080/14653125.2017.1365220
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The TheraMon® microsensor is the most recent device developed to measure the wear-time of removable appliances. The accuracy has not been validated intraorally. To determine 1) if the TheraMon® microsensor accurately records time when fixed intraorally, and 2) the effect of the intraoral location on the recorded time. A prospective pilot study, using a convenience sample, was carried out in a UK hospital orthodontic department. Five non-patient volunteers wore microsensors positioned palatal to an upper molar, and buccal to a lower molar for 7 days. Differences between actual amount of wear and the wear recorded by each device were calculated. Differences between sites were also examined. The mean daily wear-time recorded by the upper and lower microsensors combined was 23 hours (95% CI 22.6-23.4), which is a mean under-recording of 4% (CI 2.5-5.8%). The maximum daily under-reporting of wear times was 5.5 hours. Microsensors in the lower buccal sulcus recorded wear-times that were closer to actual wear-times. Assumptions made by the TheraMon® microsensors software lead to under-reporting of intraoral wear-time, particularly when placed palatally. These discrepancies could be significant in both clinical practice and research. Adjustment of the microsensor software parameters would improve accuracy, irrespective of the intraoral location.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Lecturer 2 7%
Other 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 14 47%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 43%
Mathematics 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Unknown 14 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 August 2026.
All research outputs
#3,880,369
of 31,634,113 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthodontics
#9
of 307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,241
of 343,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthodontics
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,634,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.