A comparative assessment of information recall and comprehension between conventional leaflets and an animated video in adolescent patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment: A single-center, randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this 2-arm parallel trial was to investigate the recall and comprehension of the information of orthodontic patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment using either the verbal explanation supported with the British Orthodontic Society (BOS) leaflet or 3-dimensional (3D) animated content.

METHODS

Patients aged 12-18 years, with no relevant medical history or learning and reading difficulties, who were to undergo orthodontic treatment, were randomized to receive information about fixed orthodontic treatment, using either verbal explanation supported with the BOS leaflet or 3D animated content on the basis of the BOS leaflet. Randomization was performed by block randomization; block size of 4 was used, from which 6 blocks with 6 different sequences (AABB, ABBA, ABAB, BBAA, BAAB, BABA). The blinded author asked patients a series of open-ended questions. The primary outcome measure was the total score of the questions. An independent 2 sample t test was conducted to determine if there was a statistical difference in total questions score between the conventional method (verbal and leaflet) and the 3D animation at the time of consent taking (T0) and again 1 year later (T1). The secondary outcome measure was the time spent by the clinician delivering the information to the patient.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were randomized into each group. After 1 year, 1 patient was lost in each group. At the time of consent, the conventional group scored 79.1 ± 18.4 compared with 76.4 ± 12.8 for the 3D animation group with no statistically significant difference (95% confidence interval, -11.0 to 5.3), (P = 0.492). One year later, again, there was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.639) between the conventional group (75.6 ± 12.3) and the 3D animation group (74.4 ± 9.0) (95% confidence interval, -7.0 to 4.4). The average exposure time to the educational intervention in the conventional group was 8.5 minutes more than the 3D animation group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of 3D animation or verbal and leaflet information is relatively equivalent in transferring knowledge to the orthodontic patient. The use of a 3D animated video reduces the clinician time needed in the clinic to deliver information to the patients and also allows multiple views and better suits the younger generation. Patients undergoing short- or long-term orthodontic treatment do not recall root damage as a risk of orthodontic treatment, which requires special attention from the orthodontist to reinforce this information.

REGISTRATION

This trial was not registered.

PROTOCOL

The protocol was not published before trial commencement.