Suppr超能文献

正畸矫治器的吸引力、可接受性和价值。

Attractiveness, acceptability, and value of orthodontic appliances.

作者信息

Rosvall Michael D, Fields Henry W, Ziuchkovski James, Rosenstiel Stephen F, Johnston William M

机构信息

Division of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

出版信息

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Mar;135(3):276.e1-12; discussion 276-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.09.020.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to quantify laypersons' assessments of attractiveness, acceptability, and value of orthodontic appliances.

METHODS

Orthodontic appliances were placed in a consenting adult, and digital images were captured, standardized, and incorporated into a computer-based survey. The survey displayed various images of orthodontic appliances for rating by a sample of adults (n = 50). Subjects rated each image for (1) attractiveness on a visual analog scale, (2) acceptability of placement of each appliance on themselves and their children, and (3) willingness to pay for each appliance for an adult or a child relative to a metal appliance standard. Rater reliability for the attractiveness, acceptability, and value ratings was assessed by rating 3 images twice.

RESULTS

Overall reliability values for attractiveness were intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.87 and kappa = 0.81 for acceptability and kappa = 0.88 for value ratings. The raters' annual income was not significant for attractiveness, acceptability, or value ratings. No significant difference was found between parent and child ratings for either the appliance acceptability or value ratings. Appliance brand, material, and wire were significant factors affecting attractiveness and value ratings. Attractiveness ratings were grouped in the following hierarchy of appliance types: alternative appliances such as clear trays and simulated lingual appliances > ceramic appliances > ceramic self-ligation appliances > all hybrid and stainless steel appliances. Acceptability ratings for all alternative and ceramic appliances were statistically equivalent, and statistically higher than those for other appliances. Standard metal braces had the lowest acceptability rate of 55%. The willingness-to-pay value of appliances relative to a metal standard appliance ranged from $629 for lingual appliances to $167 for a hybrid self-ligation appliance.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings show that a significant number of patients find commonly used appliances unattractive and unacceptable. Patients are willing to pay more money for appliances they deem more esthetic.

摘要

引言

本研究的目的是量化外行人对正畸矫治器的美观度、可接受性和价值的评估。

方法

将正畸矫治器放置在一位同意参与的成年人身上,拍摄数字图像,进行标准化处理,并纳入基于计算机的调查中。该调查展示了各种正畸矫治器的图像,供一组成年人(n = 50)进行评分。受试者对每张图像进行以下评分:(1)在视觉模拟量表上的美观度;(2)每种矫治器在自己和孩子身上佩戴的可接受性;(3)相对于金属矫治器标准,为成人或儿童的每种矫治器愿意支付的费用。通过对3张图像进行两次评分来评估美观度、可接受性和价值评分的评分者信度。

结果

美观度的总体信度值为组内相关系数 = 0.87,可接受性的kappa值 = 0.81,价值评分的kappa值 = 0.88。评分者的年收入对美观度、可接受性或价值评分均无显著影响。在矫治器可接受性或价值评分方面,父母和孩子的评分之间未发现显著差异。矫治器品牌、材料和弓丝是影响美观度和价值评分的重要因素。美观度评分按以下矫治器类型层次分组:透明牙套和模拟舌侧矫治器等替代矫治器 > 陶瓷矫治器 > 陶瓷自锁矫治器 > 所有混合型和不锈钢矫治器。所有替代矫治器和陶瓷矫治器的可接受性评分在统计学上相当,且在统计学上高于其他矫治器。标准金属牙套的可接受率最低,为55%。相对于金属标准矫治器,矫治器的支付意愿价值从舌侧矫治器的629美元到混合型自锁矫治器的167美元不等。

结论

这些发现表明,大量患者认为常用矫治器不美观且不可接受。患者愿意为他们认为更美观的矫治器支付更多费用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验