Perceived esthetics and value of clear aligner therapy systems: A survey among dental school instructors and undergraduate students
Christos LIVAS,
Fatema Shabnam PAZHMAN,
Zeynep ILBEYLI
et al.
Abstract:Objective: To investigate the attractiveness, acceptability, visibility and willingness-to-pay for clear aligner therapy (CAT) systems in first-year and final-year dental students and instructors. Methods: A questionnaire designed to collect information regarding esthetic preferences and intentions related to seven CAT systems was handed out to 120 undergraduate students and instructors at the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA). Proportional odds models and population average generalized estimatin… Show more
Objective: This study aimed to assess the frequency with which orthodontic patients decided to shift to another type of orthodontic appliance, among conventional metal brackets, ceramic brackets, lingual brackets and clear aligner, based on their personal experiences of pain, ulcers, bad breath, hygiene issues and social difficulties. Material and Methods: This study comprises of patients seeking orthodontic treatment. The sample (n = 500; age group = 19-25 years) was divided equally into four groups based on the treatment modality: conventional metal brackets, ceramic brackets, lingual brackets and clear aligner. Patients rated the questionnaire using a visual analogue scale, to assess variables (such as pain, ulcer etc) that impact various treatment modalities. Subsequently, patients from all groups provided feedback regarding their treatment experiences, and expressed their preference for an alternative modality. Intergroup comparison among the four groups was done using one-way analysis of variance with Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test (p ≤ 0.05). Results: Patients who received lingual brackets reported higher levels of pain and ulceration, as compared to those who received clear aligners. All four groups showed statistically significant differences for ulcers during treatment (p ≤ 0.05). Of the 125 patients who received conventional metal brackets, 28% expressed a preference for clear aligner therapy, while 20% preferred ceramic brackets. In the lingual group, 56% of 125 patients preferred clear aligner therapy, and 8% preferred ceramic brackets to complete their treatment. In the ceramic group, 83% did not want to switch, whereas 17% desired to switch to clear aligner, while in aligner group no patient desired to switch. Conclusions: A higher percentage of patients from lingual brackets group chose to shift to clear aligners, followed by conventional metal brackets group and by ceramic brackets group, in this descending order. The clear aligner group demonstrated fewer issues than the other treatment modalities.
Objective: This study aimed to assess the frequency with which orthodontic patients decided to shift to another type of orthodontic appliance, among conventional metal brackets, ceramic brackets, lingual brackets and clear aligner, based on their personal experiences of pain, ulcers, bad breath, hygiene issues and social difficulties. Material and Methods: This study comprises of patients seeking orthodontic treatment. The sample (n = 500; age group = 19-25 years) was divided equally into four groups based on the treatment modality: conventional metal brackets, ceramic brackets, lingual brackets and clear aligner. Patients rated the questionnaire using a visual analogue scale, to assess variables (such as pain, ulcer etc) that impact various treatment modalities. Subsequently, patients from all groups provided feedback regarding their treatment experiences, and expressed their preference for an alternative modality. Intergroup comparison among the four groups was done using one-way analysis of variance with Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test (p ≤ 0.05). Results: Patients who received lingual brackets reported higher levels of pain and ulceration, as compared to those who received clear aligners. All four groups showed statistically significant differences for ulcers during treatment (p ≤ 0.05). Of the 125 patients who received conventional metal brackets, 28% expressed a preference for clear aligner therapy, while 20% preferred ceramic brackets. In the lingual group, 56% of 125 patients preferred clear aligner therapy, and 8% preferred ceramic brackets to complete their treatment. In the ceramic group, 83% did not want to switch, whereas 17% desired to switch to clear aligner, while in aligner group no patient desired to switch. Conclusions: A higher percentage of patients from lingual brackets group chose to shift to clear aligners, followed by conventional metal brackets group and by ceramic brackets group, in this descending order. The clear aligner group demonstrated fewer issues than the other treatment modalities.
Aims: This review aims to analyze the multiple factors affecting the staging of the orthodontic tooth movement during clear aligner treatment and to provide an efficient work methodology in this regard during digital treatment planning. Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted on electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Google Scholar and CNKI). The results of the present study have been divided into several sections: (1) definition and concept of staging, (2) basic principles of clear aligners, (3) macro-staging, (4) micro-staging, and (5) limitations. Results: The terminology of macro-staging and micro-staging proposed in this paper aims to be a first step towards a more detailed analysis of staging. The macro-staging constitutes the general biomechanics of movements that need to be prioritized to meet the objectives of the treatment plan. It provides a comprehensive view of the movements occurring in each dental arch. The micro-staging constitutes the biomechanics of movements for each individual tooth. This involves studying the movements in the different planes of space in which each tooth is programmed, deciding if they are compatible, and having strategies to create space to avoid lack of expression. Conclusions: Further studies should focus on exploring different staging approaches to address similar malocclusions to determine which are the most effective and applicable to clinical practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.