Affiliation:
1. DJ College Of Dental Sciences & Research, Uttar Pradesh, India
Abstract
The aim of the study was to analyse variations in patients’ perception on oral health, aesthetic acceptance, pain perceptions and comfort levels in patients who has undergone/undergoing orthodontic treatment by means of two types of invisible orthodontic appliances: fixed lingual metal brackets and fixed buccal aesthetic/ceramic brackets. A comparative survey to assess the patient perception after their initial levelling alignment phase was created via Google form and sent to 25 ceramic labially treated and 25 lingually treated patient. Comfort level, pain perception, speech impediment ,quality of life in patients was significantly better in Ceramic brackets as compared to lingual (p=0.001),Aesthetic perception was significantly higher impact on ceramic (p=0.001) as 72% reported no impact on aesthetics with lingual brackets as compared to 4% in the ceramic brackets. Oral hygiene maintenance: The difference on impact of Oral hygiene maintenance was statistically non- significant between ceramic brackets and lingual brackets (p=0.238).Difficulty while having food was statistically non- significantly between ceramic brackets and lingual brackets.(p=0.448). Patients prefer lingual treatment cause of their esthetic nature and their expectations are higher with lingual treatment which itself is not favorable from a clinicians perspective and it is worth noting that speech disturbances may lead to greater social embarrassment than more or less invisible ceramic brackets.
Publisher
IP Innovative Publication Pvt Ltd
Reference17 articles.
1. G Robert, David S, Phiilp B, JCO orthodontic practice study. Part 1: trends.J Clin Orthod 2013;47:661-80
2. Rosvall MD, Fields HW, Ziuchkovski J, Rosenstiel SF, Johnston WM, Attractiveness, acceptability, and value of orthodontic appliances.Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2009;135(3):276-7
3. Fujita K, New orthodontic treatment with lingual bracket and mushroom arch wire appliance.Am J Orthod 1979;76(6):657-75
4. JPT Higgins, Green S, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0..
5. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C Gotzsche, Ioannidis PC, Clarke M, The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62(7):1-34