모바일 메뉴

KJO Korean Journal of Orthodontics

Open Access

pISSN 2234-7518
eISSN 2005-372X
QR Code QR Code

퀵메뉴 버튼

Article

home All Articles View
Split Viewer

Article In Press

Korean J Orthod

Published online October 28, 2020

Copyright © The Korean Association of Orthodontists.

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

Guido Artemio Marañón-Vásquez1; Luísa Schubach da Costa Barreto2; Matheus Melo Pithon3; Lincoln Issamu Nojima4; Matilde da Cunha Gonçalves Nojima5; Mônica Tirre de Souza Araújo6; Margareth Maria Gomes de Souza7

1PhD candidate, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rua. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325 – Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil – 21941-617
Phone number: (21) 3938-2016
E-mail: guido_amv@hotmail.com; guidoartemio@ortodontia.ufrj.br

2MSc student, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rua. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325 – Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil – 21941-617
E-mail: luisaschubach@gmail.com

3Full Professor, School of Dentistry, State University of Southwest Bahia Av. José Moreira Sobrinho, s/n, Jequiezinho – Jequié – BA, Brazil – 45206190
E-mail: matheuspithon@gmail.com

4Associate Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rua. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325 – Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil – 21941-617
E-mail: linojima@gmail.com

5Associate Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rua. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325 – Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil – 21941-617
E-mail: matildenojima@uol.com.br

6Associate Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rua. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325 – Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil – 21941-617
E-mail: monicatirre@uol.com.br

7Full Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rua. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325 – Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil – 21941-617
E-mail: margasouzaster@gamil.com; margarethmg.souza@ortodontia.ufrj.br

Correspondence to:Guido Artemio Marañón-Vásquez, DDS, MSc (First author; corresponding author)
PhD candidate, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rua. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325 – Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil – 21941-617
Phone number: (21) 3938-2016
E-mail: guido_amv@hotmail.com; guidoartemio@ortodontia.ufrj.br

Margareth Maria Gomes de Souza, DDS, MSc, PhD (Corresponding author)
Full Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rua. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325 – Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil – 21941-617
E-mail: margasouzaster@gamil.com; margarethmg.souza@ortodontia.ufrj.br

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the reasons influencing prospective patients (PP) and orthodontists to prefer a type of orthodontic appliance over another. Methods: 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). Subjects rated the importance of 17 potential reasons that would explain their choices. Those reasons that would most contribute to these decisions were identified. In addition, it was evaluated whether the provision of appliances-related information modified the participants’ preferences. 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 for all participants (p<0.001). Rates on the importance of pain/discomfort, smile aesthetics, 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 aesthetics as more important, were more likely to prefer CA; those who prioritized finishing details and cost, were more likely to choose BMB (p<0.05). Receiving appliances-related information changed the preferences of PP (p<0.001). Conclusion: Reasons related to comfort and quality of life during the use were considered as more important by PP, those related to the results and clinical performance of the appliances were considered as more relevant for orthodontists.

Keywords: Patient Preference, Orthodontic Appliances, Orthodontists

Article

ahead

Korean J Orthod

Published online October 28, 2020

Copyright © The Korean Association of Orthodontists.

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

Guido Artemio Marañón-Vásquez1; Luísa Schubach da Costa Barreto2; Matheus Melo Pithon3; Lincoln Issamu Nojima4; Matilde da Cunha Gonçalves Nojima5; Mônica Tirre de Souza Araújo6; Margareth Maria Gomes de Souza7

1PhD candidate, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rua. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325 – Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil – 21941-617
Phone number: (21) 3938-2016
E-mail: guido_amv@hotmail.com; guidoartemio@ortodontia.ufrj.br

2MSc student, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rua. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325 – Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil – 21941-617
E-mail: luisaschubach@gmail.com

3Full Professor, School of Dentistry, State University of Southwest Bahia Av. José Moreira Sobrinho, s/n, Jequiezinho – Jequié – BA, Brazil – 45206190
E-mail: matheuspithon@gmail.com

4Associate Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rua. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325 – Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil – 21941-617
E-mail: linojima@gmail.com

5Associate Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rua. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325 – Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil – 21941-617
E-mail: matildenojima@uol.com.br

6Associate Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rua. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325 – Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil – 21941-617
E-mail: monicatirre@uol.com.br

7Full Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rua. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325 – Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil – 21941-617
E-mail: margasouzaster@gamil.com; margarethmg.souza@ortodontia.ufrj.br

Correspondence to:Guido Artemio Marañón-Vásquez, DDS, MSc (First author; corresponding author)
PhD candidate, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rua. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325 – Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil – 21941-617
Phone number: (21) 3938-2016
E-mail: guido_amv@hotmail.com; guidoartemio@ortodontia.ufrj.br

Margareth Maria Gomes de Souza, DDS, MSc, PhD (Corresponding author)
Full Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rua. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325 – Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil – 21941-617
E-mail: margasouzaster@gamil.com; margarethmg.souza@ortodontia.ufrj.br

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the reasons influencing prospective patients (PP) and orthodontists to prefer a type of orthodontic appliance over another. Methods: 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). Subjects rated the importance of 17 potential reasons that would explain their choices. Those reasons that would most contribute to these decisions were identified. In addition, it was evaluated whether the provision of appliances-related information modified the participants’ preferences. 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 for all participants (p<0.001). Rates on the importance of pain/discomfort, smile aesthetics, 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 aesthetics as more important, were more likely to prefer CA; those who prioritized finishing details and cost, were more likely to choose BMB (p<0.05). Receiving appliances-related information changed the preferences of PP (p<0.001). Conclusion: Reasons related to comfort and quality of life during the use were considered as more important by PP, those related to the results and clinical performance of the appliances were considered as more relevant for orthodontists.

Keywords: Patient Preference, Orthodontic Appliances, Orthodontists