Yıl: 2023 Cilt: 36 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 101 - 110 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2021.0238 İndeks Tarihi: 05-07-2023

Evaluation of Orthodontic Treatment Method Preferences of Dentistry Students, Dentists and Orthodontic Residents

Öz:
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate orthodontic treatment method preferences among dentistry students, dentists and orthodontic residents taking into account factors such as esthetics, advantage/disadvantage, cost and treatment duration. Methods: The study was carried out on three groups: dentistry students (n=318), dentists (n=110) and orthodontic residents (n=98), and a 17-question survey was applied. Questionnaire forms included informational photos of conventional metal brackets (CMB), esthetic ceramic brackets (ECB), self-ligating brackets (SLB), clear aligner (CA), and lingual brackets (LB). The participants’ preferences for orthodontic treatment methods were evaluated using chi-square analysis, not only between groups but also considering gender and income level. Results: Regarding esthetics, dentists (41%) and orthodontic residents (78%) mostly preferred CA, while dentistry students mostly preferred LB (44%). With regard to advantage/disadvantage, dentistry students (31%) and dentists (39%) mostly preferred SLB, while orthodontic residents mostly preferred CA (55%). Regarding the success of the treatment, all three groups mostly preferred CMB. (respectively 50%; 47%; 72%). While CA was mostly preferred for short-term treatments in all three groups (respectively 40%; 71%; 88%), CMB was mostly preferred for long-term treatments (respectively 35%, 51%, 55%). Gender and income-level differences had little effect on orthodontic treatment method preferences. Conclusion: Except for long-term treatments and treatment success, there was generally great interest in CA, especially among orthodontic residents. Ceramic brackets and LB were generally the least preferred treatment methods among dentistry students, dentists, and orthodontic residents.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. Ziuchkovski JP, Fields HW, Johnston WM, Lindsey DT. Assessment of perceived orthodontic appliance attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(4):68-78. [CrossRef]
  • 2. 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. [CrossRef]
  • 3. Feu D, Catharino F, Duplat CB, Capelli Junior J. Esthetic perception and economic value of orthodontic appliances by lay Brazilian adults. Dental Press J Orthod. 2012;17(5):102-114. [CrossRef]
  • 4. Kuhlman DC, de Lima TA, Duplat CB, Junior JC. Esthetic perception of orthodontic appliances by Brazilian children and adolescents. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016;21(5):58-66. [CrossRef]
  • 5. Marañón-Vásquez GA, Barreto LSC, Pithon MM, et al. Reasons influencing the preferences of prospective patients and orthodontists for different orthodontic appliances. Korean J Orthod. 2021;51:115-125. [CrossRef]
  • 6. Alansari RA, Faydhi DA, Ashour BS, et al. Adult perceptions of different orthodontic appliances. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:2119-2128. [CrossRef]
  • 7. Alansari RA. Youth Perception of Different Orthodontic Appliances. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020;14:1011-1019. [CrossRef]
  • 8. 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. [CrossRef]
  • 9. Damon DH. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin Orthod Res. 1998;1(1):52-61. [CrossRef]
  • 10. Bishara SE, Fehr DE. Ceramic brackets: something old, something new, a review. Semin Orthod. 1997; 3:178-88. [CrossRef]
  • 11. Fritz U, Diedrich P, Wiechmann D. Lingual technique--patients' characteristics, motivation and acceptance. Interpretation of a retrospective survey. J Orofac Orthop. 2002;63(3):227-233. [CrossRef]
  • 12. Long H, Zhou Y, Pyakurel U, et al. Comparison of adverse effects between lingual and labial orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(6):1066-1073. [CrossRef]
  • 13. Papageorgiou SN, Gölz L, Jäger A, Eliades T, Bourauel C. Lingual vs. labial fixed orthodontic appliances: systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment effects. Eur J Oral Sci. 2016;124:105-18. [CrossRef]
  • 14. Chen J, Wan J, You L. Speech and orthodontic ap- pliances: a systematic literature review. Eur J Orthod. 2018;40:29-36. [CrossRef]
  • 15. Riolo C. Lingual orthodontics: adding value to the care we offer our patients. Semin Orthod. 2018;24:269-70. [CrossRef]
  • 16. White DW, Julien KC, Jacob H, Campbell PM, Buschang PH. Discomfort associated with Invisalign and traditional brackets: A randomized, prospective trial. Angle Orthod. 2017;87(6):801-808. [CrossRef]
  • 17. Fang X, Qi R, Liu C. Root resorption in orthodontic treatment with clear aligners: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019;22:259-69. [CrossRef]
  • 18. Jiang Q, Li J, Mei L, et al. Periodontal health during orthodontic treatment with clear aligners and fixed appliances: a meta- analysis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2018;149:712-20. [CrossRef]
  • 19. Miethke RR, Brauner K. A Comparison of the periodontal health of patients during treatment with the Invisalign system and with fixed lingual appliances. J Orofac Orthop. 2007;68(3):223-31. [CrossRef]
  • 20. Pithon MM, Baiao FCS, Sant Anna LIDA, Paranhos LR, Cople Maia L. Assessment of the effectiveness of invisible aligners compared with conventional appliance in aesthetic and functional orthodontic treatment: A systematic review. J Investig Clin Dent. 2019;10(4):12455. [CrossRef]
  • 21. Robertson L, Kaur H, Fagundes NCF, Romanyk D, Major P, Flores Mir C. Effectiveness of clear aligner therapy for orthodontic treatment: A systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2020;23(2):133- 142. [CrossRef]
  • 22. Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL. Efficacy of clear aligners in controlling orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2015;85(5):881-9. [CrossRef]
  • 23. d'Apuzzo F, Perillo L, Carrico CK, et al. Clear aligner treatment: different perspectives between orthodontists and general dentists. Prog Orthod. 2019;20(1):10. [CrossRef]
  • 24. Best AD, Shroff B, Carrico CK, Lindauer SJ. Treatment management between orthodontists and general practitioners performing clear aligner therapy. Angle Orthod. 2017;87(3):432-439. [CrossRef]
APA kadıoğlu m, Çakmak B, ALTUNAL E, RÜBENDÜZ M (2023). Evaluation of Orthodontic Treatment Method Preferences of Dentistry Students, Dentists and Orthodontic Residents. , 101 - 110. 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2021.0238
Chicago kadıoğlu merve berika,Çakmak Berrak,ALTUNAL EZGİ KARDELEN,RÜBENDÜZ Meliha Evaluation of Orthodontic Treatment Method Preferences of Dentistry Students, Dentists and Orthodontic Residents. (2023): 101 - 110. 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2021.0238
MLA kadıoğlu merve berika,Çakmak Berrak,ALTUNAL EZGİ KARDELEN,RÜBENDÜZ Meliha Evaluation of Orthodontic Treatment Method Preferences of Dentistry Students, Dentists and Orthodontic Residents. , 2023, ss.101 - 110. 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2021.0238
AMA kadıoğlu m,Çakmak B,ALTUNAL E,RÜBENDÜZ M Evaluation of Orthodontic Treatment Method Preferences of Dentistry Students, Dentists and Orthodontic Residents. . 2023; 101 - 110. 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2021.0238
Vancouver kadıoğlu m,Çakmak B,ALTUNAL E,RÜBENDÜZ M Evaluation of Orthodontic Treatment Method Preferences of Dentistry Students, Dentists and Orthodontic Residents. . 2023; 101 - 110. 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2021.0238
IEEE kadıoğlu m,Çakmak B,ALTUNAL E,RÜBENDÜZ M "Evaluation of Orthodontic Treatment Method Preferences of Dentistry Students, Dentists and Orthodontic Residents." , ss.101 - 110, 2023. 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2021.0238
ISNAD kadıoğlu, merve berika vd. "Evaluation of Orthodontic Treatment Method Preferences of Dentistry Students, Dentists and Orthodontic Residents". (2023), 101-110. https://doi.org/10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2021.0238
APA kadıoğlu m, Çakmak B, ALTUNAL E, RÜBENDÜZ M (2023). Evaluation of Orthodontic Treatment Method Preferences of Dentistry Students, Dentists and Orthodontic Residents. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, 36(2), 101 - 110. 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2021.0238
Chicago kadıoğlu merve berika,Çakmak Berrak,ALTUNAL EZGİ KARDELEN,RÜBENDÜZ Meliha Evaluation of Orthodontic Treatment Method Preferences of Dentistry Students, Dentists and Orthodontic Residents. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics 36, no.2 (2023): 101 - 110. 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2021.0238
MLA kadıoğlu merve berika,Çakmak Berrak,ALTUNAL EZGİ KARDELEN,RÜBENDÜZ Meliha Evaluation of Orthodontic Treatment Method Preferences of Dentistry Students, Dentists and Orthodontic Residents. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, vol.36, no.2, 2023, ss.101 - 110. 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2021.0238
AMA kadıoğlu m,Çakmak B,ALTUNAL E,RÜBENDÜZ M Evaluation of Orthodontic Treatment Method Preferences of Dentistry Students, Dentists and Orthodontic Residents. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics. 2023; 36(2): 101 - 110. 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2021.0238
Vancouver kadıoğlu m,Çakmak B,ALTUNAL E,RÜBENDÜZ M Evaluation of Orthodontic Treatment Method Preferences of Dentistry Students, Dentists and Orthodontic Residents. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics. 2023; 36(2): 101 - 110. 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2021.0238
IEEE kadıoğlu m,Çakmak B,ALTUNAL E,RÜBENDÜZ M "Evaluation of Orthodontic Treatment Method Preferences of Dentistry Students, Dentists and Orthodontic Residents." Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, 36, ss.101 - 110, 2023. 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2021.0238
ISNAD kadıoğlu, merve berika vd. "Evaluation of Orthodontic Treatment Method Preferences of Dentistry Students, Dentists and Orthodontic Residents". Turkish Journal of Orthodontics 36/2 (2023), 101-110. https://doi.org/10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2021.0238