Huayta-Garcia Diego Alonso, Carranza-Samanez Kilder Maynor, Dulanto-Vargas Julissa Amparo
School of Dentistry, Universidad Científica del Sur. Lima, Perú.
Research Group in Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Universidad Científica del Sur. Lima, Perú.
Rev Cient Odontol (Lima). 2024 Sep 17;12(3):e206. doi: 10.21142/2523-2754-1203-2024-206. eCollection 2024 Jul-Sep.
Orthodontists' perception of bracket techniques plays a significant role in planning, allowing critical evaluation of the patient's facial aesthetics.
To compare the perception of Peruvian orthodontists regarding treatments with self-ligating and conventional brackets.
A questionnaire was applied to 168 orthodontic specialists (53% men, average professional experience 9 years) to evaluate preferences for treatment phases, benefits of patient consultation according to the type of bracket, experience with self-ligating brackets, and demographic and clinical characteristics (sex, years of experience, volume of care and length of experience). The Kruskal-Wallis Test and Chi-square test were used with P < 0.05.
The total preference for self-ligating brackets (48.9%) was higher than conventional brackets (18.8%). Self-ligating brackets were preferred in most treatment phases (46.4%-63.7%) but not in completion and finishing, in which conventional brackets were preferred. Most orthodontists preferred self-ligating brackets (40.5%-60.7%) over conventional brackets (4.2%-14.3%) due to patient comfort, oral hygiene, and total treatment and appointment time control, but not the cost. The orthodontists reported SLB having mastered their technique in <10 cases (59.5%), the experience of <2 years (45.2%), applying control times of 4-9 weeks (78.6%), and feeling comfortable with their use (89.3%). Preferences were not associated with sex ( > 0.05) but rather with years of professional experience ( < 0.05).
Peruvian orthodontists preferred self-ligating brackets over conventional brackets in most treatment phases associated with user comfort and oral hygiene management and treatment/control time, and professional experience. However, some factors, such as cost-effectiveness, counteracted this preference.
正畸医生对托槽技术的认知在治疗计划中起着重要作用，有助于对患者面部美学进行关键评估。
比较秘鲁正畸医生对自锁托槽和传统托槽治疗的看法。
对168名正畸专科医生（53%为男性，平均专业经验9年）进行问卷调查，以评估对治疗阶段的偏好、根据托槽类型进行患者咨询的益处、自锁托槽的使用经验以及人口统计学和临床特征（性别、经验年限、护理量和经验时长）。采用Kruskal-Wallis检验和卡方检验，P<0.05。
自锁托槽的总体偏好率（48.9%）高于传统托槽（18.8%）。在大多数治疗阶段（46.4%-63.7%），自锁托槽更受青睐，但在矫治完成和精细调整阶段，传统托槽更受青睐。由于患者舒适度、口腔卫生以及对总治疗和预约时间的控制，大多数正畸医生更喜欢自锁托槽（40.5%-60.7%）而非传统托槽（4.2%-14.3%），但成本因素除外。正畸医生报告称，在治疗少于10例患者（59.5%）、经验少于2年（45.2%）、应用控制时间为4-9周（78.6%）的情况下，他们掌握了自锁托槽技术，并且对其使用感到满意（89.3%）。偏好与性别无关（P>0.05），而与专业经验年限有关（P<0.05）。
在与用户舒适度、口腔卫生管理以及治疗/控制时间和专业经验相关的大多数治疗阶段，秘鲁正畸医生更喜欢自锁托槽而非传统托槽。然而，一些因素，如成本效益，抵消了这种偏好。
