Korean J Orthod.  2021 Mar;51(2):115-125. 10.4041/kjod.2021.51.2.115.

Reasons influencing the preferences of prospective patients and orthodontists for different orthodontic appliances

• Marañón-Vásquez GA
• Costa Barreto LSd
• Pithon MM
• Nojima LI
• Gonçalves Nojima MdC
• Souza Araújo MTd
• Gomes de Souza MM

• KMID: 2513580
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2021.51.2.115

Abstract

Objective
To evaluate the reasons influencing the preferences for a certain type of orthodontic appliance over another among prospective patients (PP) and orthodontists.
Methods
A total of 49 PP and 51 orthodontists were asked about their preferences for the following appliances: clear aligners (CA), lingual metallic brackets (LMB), polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets, and buccal metallic brackets (BMB). The participants rated the importance of 17 potential reasons that would explain their choices. The reasons that contributed most to these preferences were identified. Non-parametric tests (Fisher’s exact, χ² and Mann–Whitney tests) and multivariate analyses (regression and discriminant analysis) were used to assess the data (α = 0.05).
Results
CA and BMB were the most chosen appliances by PP and orthodontists, respectively.LMB was the most rejected option among both groups of participants (p < 0.001). Rates of the importance of pain/discomfort, smile esthetics, finishing details, and feeding/speech impairment showed the highest differences between PP and orthodontists (p < 0.0005). Discriminant analyses showed that individuals who considered treatment time and smile esthetics as more important were more likely to prefer CA, while those who prioritized finishing details and cost were more likely to choose BMB (p < 0.05).
Conclusions
Reasons related to comfort and quality of life during use were considered as more important by PP, while those related to the results and clinical performance of the appliances were considered as more relevant by orthodontists.

Keyword

Patient preference; Orthodontic appliances; Orthodontists

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Images of the orthodontic appliances presented to the participants. A, Clear aligners. B, Lingual metallic brackets. C, Polycrystalline ceramic brackets. D, Monocrystalline ceramic brackets. E, Buccal metallic brackets.

• 

  Figure 2 Scores recorded by prospective patients and orthodontists on the importance of the reasons influencing their preferences. The reasons are presented in order of importance to the prospective patients. The means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are only representative values, since the medians (and interquartile ranges) were considered for statistical analysis (Graphic generated in GraphPad Prism [GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA]). 1, no importance; 2, less important; 3, moderate importance; 4, very important; 5, extremely important.

Reference

1. Rosvall MD, Fields HW, Ziuchkovski J, Rosenstiel SF, Johnston WM. 2009; Attractiveness, acceptability, and value of orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 135:276.e1–12. discussion 276–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.07.011. PMID: 19268820.

2. White DW, Julien KC, Jacob H, Campbell PM, Buschang PH. 2017; Discomfort associated with Invisalign and traditional brackets: a randomized, prospective trial. Angle Orthod. 87:801–8. DOI: 10.2319/091416-687.1. PMID: 28753032.

3. Papadimitriou A, Mousoulea S, Gkantidis N, Kloukos D. 2018; Clinical effectiveness of Invisalign^® orthodontic treatment: a systematic review. Prog Orthod. 19:37. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-018-0235-z. PMID: 30264270. PMCID: PMC6160377.

4. Papageorgiou SN, Gölz L, Jäger A, Eliades T, Bourauel C. 2016; Lingual vs. labial fixed orthodontic appliances: systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment effects. Eur J Oral Sci. 124:105–18. DOI: 10.1111/eos.12250. PMID: 26916846.

5. Reicheneder CA, Baumert U, Gedrange T, Proff P, Faltermeier A, Muessig D. 2007; Frictional properties of aesthetic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 29:359–65. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjm033. PMID: 17702795.

6. Shalish M, Cooper-Kazaz R, Ivgi I, Canetti L, Tsur B, Bachar E, et al. 2012; Adult patients' adjustability to orthodontic appliances. Part I: a comparison between Labial, Lingual, and InvisalignTM. Eur J Orthod. 34:724–30. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr086. PMID: 21750242.

7. Ata-Ali F, Ata-Ali J, Ferrer-Molina M, Cobo T, De Carlos F, Cobo J. 2016; Adverse effects of lingual and buccal orthodontic techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 149:820–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.11.031. PMID: 27241992.

8. Fang X, Qi R, Liu C. 2019; Root resorption in orthodontic treatment with clear aligners: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res. 22:259–69. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12337. PMID: 31323701.

9. Jiang Q, Li J, Mei L, Du J, Levrini L, Abbate GM, et al. 2018; Periodontal health during orthodontic treatment with clear aligners and fixed appliances: a meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc. 149:712–20.e12. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2018.04.010. PMID: 29921415.

10. Leles CR, Freire Mdo C. 2004; A sociodental approach in prosthodontic treatment decision making. J Appl Oral Sci. 12:127–32. DOI: 10.1590/S1678-77572004000200009. PMID: 21365135.

11. Broder HL, Phillips C, Kaminetzky S. 2000; Issues in decision making: should I have orthognathic surgery? Semin Orthod. 6:249–58. DOI: 10.1053/sodo.2000.19073.

12. Walton DK, Fields HW, Johnston WM, Rosenstiel SF, Firestone AR, Christensen JC. 2010; Orthodontic appliance preferences of children and adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 138:698.e1–12. discussion 698–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.06.012. PMID: 21130314.

13. McKiernan EX, McKiernan F, Jones ML. 1992; Psychological profiles and motives of adults seeking orthodontic treatment. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 7:187–98. PMID: 1291613.

14. de Souza RA, de Oliveira AF, Pinheiro SM, Cardoso JP, Magnani MB. 2013; Expectations of orthodontic treatment in adults: the conduct in orthodontist/patient relationship. Dental Press J Orthod. 18:88–94. DOI: 10.1590/S2176-94512013000200019. PMID: 23916437.

15. Leles CR, Martins RR, Silva ET, Nunes MF. 2009; Discriminant analysis of patients' reasons for choosing or refusing treatments for partial edentulism. J Oral Rehabil. 36:909–15. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.02018.x. PMID: 19874451.

16. Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa. 2018. Apr. 16. Critério de classificação econômica Brasil [Internet]. Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa;São Paulo: Available from: http://www.abep.org/criterioBr/01_cceb_2018.pdf. cited 2018 Oct 22.

17. Leles CR, Ferreira NP, Vieira AH, Campos AC, Silva ET. 2011; Factors influencing edentulous patients' preferences for prosthodontic treatment. J Oral Rehabil. 38:333–9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02158.x. PMID: 21039748.

18. Ziuchkovski JP, Fields HW, Johnston WM, Lindsey DT. 2008; Assessment of perceived orthodontic appliance attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 133(4 Suppl):S68–78. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.07.025. PMID: 18407023.

19. Fonseca LM, Araújo TM, Santos AR, Faber J. 2014; Impact of metal and ceramic fixed orthodontic appliances on judgments of beauty and other face-related attributes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 145:203–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.10.016. PMID: 24485735.

20. Robertson L, Kaur H, Fagundes NCF, Romanyk D, Major P, Flores Mir C. 2020; Effectiveness of clear aligner therapy for orthodontic treatment: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 23:133–42. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12353. PMID: 31651082.

21. Kuncio D, Maganzini A, Shelton C, Freeman K. 2007; Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment postretention outcomes compared using the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Angle Orthod. 77:864–9. DOI: 10.2319/100106-398.1. PMID: 17685783.

22. Cardoso PC, Espinosa DG, Mecenas P, Flores-Mir C, Normando D. 2020; Pain level between clear aligners and fixed appliances: a systematic review. Prog Orthod. 21:3. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-019-0303-z. PMID: 31956934. PMCID: PMC6970090.

23. Mistakidis I, Katib H, Vasilakos G, Kloukos D, Gkantidis N. 2016; Clinical outcomes of lingual orthodontic treatment: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 38:447–58. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjv061. PMID: 26359019.

24. Long H, Zhou Y, Pyakurel U, Liao L, Jian F, Xue J, et al. 2013; Comparison of adverse effects between lingual and labial orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 83:1066–73. DOI: 10.2319/010113-2.1. PMID: 23581503.

25. Chen J, Wan J, You L. 2018; Speech and orthodontic appliances: a systematic literature review. Eur J Orthod. 40:29–36. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjx023. PMID: 28472259.

26. Miller KB, McGorray SP, Womack R, Quintero JC, Perelmuter M, Gibson J, et al. 2007; A comparison of treatment impacts between Invisalign aligner and fixed appliance therapy during the first week of treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 131:302.e1–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.05.031. PMID: 17346581.

27. Montgomery AA, Fahey T. 2001; How do patients' treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians? Qual Health Care. 10 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):i39–43. DOI: 10.1136/qhc.0100039. PMID: 11533437. PMCID: PMC1765739.

28. Cai Y, Du W, Lin F, Ye S, Ye Y. 2018; Agreement of young adults and orthodontists on dental aesthetics & influencing factors of self-perceived aesthetics. BMC Oral Health. 18:113. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-018-0575-6. PMID: 29921251. PMCID: PMC6008947.

29. Riolo C. 2018; Lingual orthodontics: adding value to the care we offer our patients. Semin Orthod. 24:P269–70. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2018.08.009.

30. Buschang PH, Shaw SG, Ross M, Crosby D, Campbell PM. 2014; Comparative time efficiency of aligner therapy and conventional edgewise braces. Angle Orthod. 84:391–6. DOI: 10.2319/062113-466. PMID: 24749702.