Analysis of the Top Five Most Rated Orthodontic mHealth Apps
Main Article Content
Keywords
Orthodontics, mobile apps, preference, App Store, Google Play
Abstract
Background: Orthodontic mobile apps are more commonly used in the last years and are appreciated by both doctors and patients due to their ability to obtain instant feedback between the patient and the specialist. This comparative research aims to review the top five most rated orthodontic apps available today in App Store® and Google Play®.
Methods: Systematic search using predetermined key words and inclusion/exclusion criteria was conducted in App Store® and Google Play® to identify the top five most rated orthodontic apps with the highest ranking and the greatest number of downloads. Evaluation of the apps was conducted by doctors, patients, and an IT App developer. System Usability Scale, Exit Interview, and Average Score were used for the assessment.
Results: Some apps received good scores from the participants while other apps received poor scores. Invisalign Photo Uploader received good scores from all doctors while Tray Minder was rated as poor by other doctors. My Invisalign was the most appreciated app by the patients and received excellent scores as well as Dental Monitoring while some scores were poor for Fake Braces app. The average scores indicate that My Invisalign was the top ranked app by the patients with an average score of 82 while Invisalign Photo Uploader was most appreciated by the doctors with an average score of 74.5.
Conclusion: A wide range of orthodontic apps is available on App Store® and Google Play® but just a few apps are commonly used by doctors and patients. The most appreciated feature of the apps is the instant feedback between the doctors and patients which makes the patient more compliant with orthodontic treatment.
References
2. The Most Surprising App User Statistics And Trends in 2023. Availabe online: https://blog.gitnux.com/app-user-statistics/ (accessed on 25 March 2023).
3. Singh, P. Orthodontic apps for smartphones. J. Orthod. 2013, 40, 249–255.
4. Baheti, M.J.; Toshniwal, N. Orthodontic apps at fingertips. Prog. Orthod. 2014, 15, 1–5.
5. Gupta, G.; Vaid, N. The world of orthodontic apps. APOS Trends Orthod. 2017, 7, 73–73.
6. Siddiqui, N.R.; Hodges, S.J.; Sharif, M.O. Orthodontic apps: An assessment of quality (using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS)) and behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Prog. Orthod. 2021, 22, 25.
7. Zotti, F.; Zotti, R.; Albanese, M.; Nocini, P.F.; Paganelli, C. Implementing post-orthodontic compliance among adolescents wearing removable retainers through Whatsapp: A pilot study. Patient Prefer. Adherence 2019, 13, 609.
8. Wegrzyniak, L.M.; Hedderly, D.; Chaudry, K.; Bollu, P. Measuring the effectiveness of patient-chosen reminder methods in a private orthodontic practice. Angle Orthod. 2018, 88, 314–318.
9. Mohammed, H.; Rizk, M.Z.; Wafaie, K.; Ulhaq, A.; Almuzian, M. Reminders improve oral hygiene and adherence to appointments in orthodontic patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Orthod. 2019, 41, 204–213.
10. Alkadhi, O.H.; Zahid, M.N.; Almanea, R.S.; Althaqeb, H.K.; Alharbi, T.H.; Ajwa, N.M. The effect of using mobile applications for improving oral hygiene in patients with orthodontic fixed appliances: A randomised controlled trial. J. Orthod. 2017, 44, 157–163.
11. Nayak, P.; Nayak, S.; Vikneshan, M.; Acharya, S.; Sathiyabalan, D. Smartphone apps: A state-of-
the-art approach for oral health education. J. Oral. Res. 2019, 8, 386–393.
12. Khader, D.A.; Peedikayil, F.C.; Chandru, T.; Kottayi, S.; Namboothiri, D. Reliability of One Ceph software in cephalometric tracing: A comparative study. SRM J. Res. Dent. Sci. 2020, 11, 35.
13. Aksakallı, S.; Yılancı, H.; Görükmez, E.; Ramoğlu, S.İ. Reliability assessment of orthodontic apps for cephalometrics. Turk. J. Orthod. 2016, 29, 98.
14. Kumar, M.; Kumari, S.; Chandna, A.; Singh, A.; Kumar, H. Comparative evaluation of CephNinja for Android and NemoCeph for computer for cephalometric analysis: A study to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CephNinja for cephalometric analysis. J. Int. Soc. Prev. Community Dent. 2020, 10, 286.
15. Livas, C.; Delli, K.; Spijkervet, F.K.L.; Vissink, A.; Dijkstra, P.U. Concurrent validity and reliability of cephalometric analysis using smartphone apps and computer software. Angle Orthod. 2019, 89, 889–896.
16. Faber, J.; Faber, C.; Faber, P. Artificial intelligence in orthodontics. APOS Trends Orthod. 2019, 9, 201–205.
17. Vaid, N.R.; Hansa, I.; Bichu, Y. Smartphone applications used in orthodontics: A scoping review of scholarly literature. J. World Fed. Orthod. 2020, 9, S67–S73.
18. Jung, S.K.; Kim, T.W. New approach for the diagnosis of extractions with neural network machine learning. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2016, 149, 127–133.
19. Bangor, A.; Kortum, P.T.; Miller, J.T. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Intl. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2008, 24, 574–594.
20. Brooke, J. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 1996, 189, 4–7.
21. Utley-Smith, Q.; Bailey, D.; Ammarell, N.; Corazzini, K.; Colon-Emeric, C.S.; Lekan-Rutledge, D.; Piven, M.L.; Anderson, R.A. Exit interview-consultation for research validation and dissemination. West. J. Nurs. Res. 2006, 28, 955–973.
22. Jakob N. Why you only need to test with 5 users. Nielsen Norman Group, Nielsen. 2000.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.