Teerthanker Mahaveer Dental College, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics (Moradabad/Uttar Pradesh, India).
Dental Press J Orthod. 2024 Mar 29;29(1):e2423133. doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.29.1.e2423133.oar. eCollection 2024.
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.
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).
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.
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.
本研究旨在评估正畸患者在经历疼痛、溃疡、口臭、卫生问题和社交困难等个人体验后，决定从传统金属托槽、陶瓷托槽、舌侧托槽和隐形矫治器中转换为另一种正畸矫治器的频率。
本研究纳入寻求正畸治疗的患者。将样本（n=500；年龄组=19-25 岁）根据治疗方式分为四组：传统金属托槽、陶瓷托槽、舌侧托槽和隐形矫治器。患者使用视觉模拟量表（VAS）对问卷进行评分，以评估影响各种治疗方式的变量（如疼痛、溃疡等）。随后，所有组别的患者均提供了关于其治疗体验的反馈，并表达了对替代治疗方式的偏好。使用单因素方差分析（one-way ANOVA）和 Tukey 的 HSD 事后检验（p≤0.05）比较四组之间的差异。
与接受隐形矫治器的患者相比，接受舌侧托槽的患者报告的疼痛和溃疡程度更高。所有四组在治疗期间的溃疡情况均存在统计学显著差异（p≤0.05）。在接受传统金属托槽的 125 名患者中，28%表示更倾向于接受隐形矫治器治疗，而 20%更倾向于陶瓷托槽。在舌侧组中，125 名患者中有 56%更倾向于接受隐形矫治器治疗，8%更倾向于陶瓷托槽来完成治疗。在陶瓷组中，83%的患者不想更换，而 17%希望更换为隐形矫治器，而在隐形矫治器组中没有患者希望更换。
在本研究中，舌侧托槽组中有较高比例的患者选择转换为隐形矫治器，其次是传统金属托槽组和陶瓷托槽组，按此降序排列。隐形矫治器组的问题比其他治疗方式更少。
