LAYPEOPLE PERCEPTION OF ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCES – A CROSS SECTIONAL SURVEY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33279/jkcd.v14i03.610Keywords:
Attractiveness, orthodontic appliance, laypeople, perceptionAbstract
Objectives: To assess the perception of adult laypeople regarding the attractiveness of various orthodontic appliances.
Materials and Methods: A total of 195 participants, aged 18 to 40 years, with at least an intermediate level of schooling, non-dental education, and no history of orthodontic treatment, were included in the study. Participants evaluated the attractiveness of nine different orthodontic appliances through a questionnaire designed using frontal oral smiling photographs. The appliances included metal brackets with colorless elastomeric ligatures, self-ligating brackets made of stainless steel, clear aligner trays, hybrid brackets, ceramic brackets, self-ligating ceramic
brackets, metal brackets with colored elastomeric ligatures, no appliance (simulating lingual brackets), and shaped brackets. Scores were given on a Visual analogue scale. Attractiveness scores were stratified based on gender and occupation using one-way ANOVA.
Results: The results showed the mean age of 25.90±5.49 years among the participants, with the majority being female (53.85%) and students (36.41%). The "CAT" bracket type was rated as the most attractive (8.37 ± 1.35), while the "Shaped brackets"and"SLB" types received lower attractiveness scores (5.54 ± 1.96and 5.90 ± 1.85, respectively). Significant differences were observed among the diff erent bracket types (p<0.001). Lingual brackets and CAT brackets was perceived as highly attractive in both genders, with statistically signifi cant diff erences (p<0.001)
between genders.
Conclusion: The study concludes that adult laypeople preferred orthodontic appliances with minimal visibility and clear materials, while increased metal visibility was associated with decreased perceived attractiveness.
References
Yi S, Zhang C, Ni C, Qian Y, Zhang J. Psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics and desire for orthodontic treatment among Chinese undergraduate students. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016:1037-42.
Seyyedi SA, Razeghinejad MH, Yeganeh Majd H, Taram S. Assessment of the Patient Satisfaction from Adjunctive Laser Therapy during Orthodontic Treatment. Journal of Res Appl Basic Med Sci. 2022;8(4):237-45.
Nc SC, Kalidass DSP, Davis D, Kishore S, Suvetha S. Orthodontics in the Era of Digital Innovation--A Review. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2021;10(28):2114-22.
Saccomanno S, Saran S, Laganà D, Mastrapasqua R, Grippaudo C. Motivation, perception, and behavior of the adult orthodontic patient: a survey analysis. BioMed Res Int. 2022;2022:107.
Oliveira SCd, Furquim RD, Ramos AL. Impact of brackets on smile esthetics: laypersons and orthodontists perception. Dent Press J Orthod. 2012;17:64-70.
Collier S, Pandis N, Johal A, Qureshi U, Sharma P, Fleming P. A prospective cohort study assessing the appearance of retrieved aesthetic orthodontic archwires. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2018;21(1):27-32.
De Stefani A, Bruno G, Preo G, Gracco A. Application of nanotechnology in orthodontic materials: a state-of-the-art review. Dent J. 2020;8(4):126-32.
Papageorgiou SN, Polychronis G, Panayi N, Zinelis S, Eliades T. New aesthetic in-house 3D-printed brackets: proof of concept and fundamental mechanical properties. Prog Orthod. 2022;23(1):6-13.
Johal A, Bondemark L. Clear aligner orthodontic treatment: Angle Society of Europe consensus viewpoint. J
Orthod. 2021;48(3):300-4.
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.
Alansari RA, Faydhi DA, Ashour BS, Alsaggaf DH, Shuman MT, Ghoneim SH, et al. Adult perceptions of different orthodontic appliances. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019:2119-28.
Walton DK, Fields HW, Johnston WM, Rosenstiel SF, Firestone AR, Christensen JC. Orthodontic appliance preferences of children and adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(6):698. e1-. e12.
Ziuchkovski JP, Fields HW, Johnston W, Lindsey D. Assessment of perceived orthodontic appliance attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133(Suppl):S68-78.
Moshkelgosha V, Salahi M, Rostami S. Evaluation of perceived acceptability, beauty and value of different orthodontic brackets. J Dent Biomater. 2015;2(1):33–38.
Jeremiah HG, Bister D, Newton JT. Social perceptions of adults wearing orthodontic appliances: a cross-sectional
study. Eur J Orthod. 2010;33:476-82.
Kuhlman DC, Lima TAd, Duplat CB, Capelli Junior J. Esthetic perception of orthodontic appliances by Brazilian children and adolescents. Dent Press J Orthod. 2016;21:58-66.
Weir T. Clear aligners in orthodontic treatment. Austral Dent J. 2017;62:58-62.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Aneela Nausheen, Faizan Ul Hassan, Sher Zadah, Faisal Farid
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
Share-copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Attribution-You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
NonCommercial-You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
NoDerivatives-If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.
No additional restrictions-You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
