Back to Journals » Patient Preference and Adherence » Volume 13

Adult Perceptions of Different Orthodontic Appliances

Authors Alansari RA, Faydhi DA, Ashour BS, Alsaggaf DH, Shuman MT, Ghoneim SH, Linjawi AI, Marghalani HYA, Dause RR

Received 15 October 2019

Accepted for publication 27 November 2019

Published 13 December 2019 Volume 2019:13 Pages 2119—2128

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S234449

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Johnny Chen


Reem A Alansari,1 Dimah A Faydhi,2 Basoum S Ashour,2 Doaa H Alsaggaf,1 Muhannad T Shuman,3 Salma H Ghoneim,1 Amal I Linjawi,1 Hussain YA Marghalani,1 Rania R Dause1

1Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; 2Dental Interns, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi; 3Private Practice, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence: Reem A Alansari
King Abdulaziz University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Alsulemaneya, PO Box 80209, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
Tel +966 505533276
Fax +966 12 692 1262
Email Reem.alansari@kau.edu.sa

Introduction: Pursuing an esthetically-pleasing orthodontic outcome, orthodontic patients must consider and choose from the different available options of orthodontic appliance. Practitioners need to be better informed of their customers’ preferences to make better practice management decisions and satisfy their patients’ needs.
Purpose: To explore adult laypeople’s perceptions of the attractiveness, acceptability, preference and economic value of different orthodontic appliances when they consider these appliances for themselves and for their children.
Patients and methods: This cross-sectional survey included 199 adults (110 females). The average age of participants was 27.7 years. Participants answered a questionnaire evaluating and comparing multiple smiling images of an adult wearing different orthodontic appliances. Participants rated each appliance for: (1) attractiveness on a Likert scale; (2) acceptability of having the appliance placed for themselves and their children (with a yes/no response); (3) preference (by ranking all appliances in order); and (4) economic value (by providing the additional amount they are willing to pay for each appliance for themselves and their children).
Results: We found a statistically significant difference in the attractiveness scores between the different orthodontic appliances (p< 0.0001). The most attractive appliances were clear aligners and lingual brackets. The least attractive appliances were colored o-tied-brackets followed by shaped-brackets. Clear aligners were the most acceptable appliances among our participants to have placed on themselves (86.9%) and their children (84.9%). Shaped brackets were the least acceptable appliances among our participants to have placed on themselves (24.1%) and their children (36.2%). The most preferred appliances were lingual brackets (39.2%), followed by clear aligners (34.17%). The least preferred appliances were colored o-tied-brackets (4%). Participants varied with regards to how much more they were willing to pay for each of the different orthodontic appliances. The majority were willing to pay more for clear aligners and lingual brackets to have them placed on themselves but not to have them placed on their children.
Conclusion: Adults preferred more innovative esthetic appliances over traditional ones and were willing to pay more to have them placed on themselves but not on their children.

Keywords: smile, attractiveness, esthetics, value
 

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]