Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Dec 13:13:2119-2128.
doi: 10.2147/PPA.S234449. eCollection 2019.

Adult Perceptions of Different Orthodontic Appliances

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 Dause  1
Affiliations

Adult Perceptions of Different Orthodontic Appliances

Reem A Alansari et al. Patient Prefer Adherence. .

Abstract

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: attractiveness; esthetics; smile; value.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The different orthodontic appliances displayed in the questionnaire.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Box and whisker plot showing the median and interquartile range of the scores participants gave to rate attractiveness of different orthodontic appliances.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Adults’ acceptability of different orthodontic appliances for their themselves. *P value <0.05.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Adults’ acceptability of different orthodontic appliances for their children. *P value <0.05.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Adults’ preference of different orthodontic appliances. (n=199).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Russell JS. Current products and practice: aesthetic orthodontic brackets. J Orthod. 2005;32(2):146–163. doi:10.1179/146531205225021024 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sarver DM, Ackerman JL. Orthodontics about face: the re-emergence of the esthetic paradigm. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;117(5):575–576. doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(00)70204-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bergström K, Halling A, Wilde B. Orthodontic care from the patients’ perspective: perceptions of 27-year-olds. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20(3):319–329. doi:10.1093/ejo/20.3.319 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jeremiah HG, Bister D, Newton JT. Social perceptions of adults wearing orthodontic appliances: a cross-sectional study. Eur J Orthod. 2010;33(5):476–482. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjq069 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rosvall MD, Fields HW, Ziuchkovski J, Rosenstiel SF, Johnston WM. Attractiveness, acceptability, and value of orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135(3):276–e1. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.09.020 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources