Orthodontic appliance preferences of children and adolescents

Walton, Daniel K.; Fields, Henry W.; Johnston, William M.; Rosenstiel, Stephen F.; Firestone, Allen R.; Christensen, James C.

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.06.012

Cited by 95 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These data show that reduction of visible metal is not a determining esthetic factor for most children. A similar result was found in the study by Walton et al, 11 but their result was different from similar studies in adults, which found preferences for appliances with less visible metal 7 8 , 10 , 14 Group 2 gave better scores for sapphire brackets and clear aligner without attachments than Group 1, and these findings were similar to results yielded by Walton et al 11 and Oliveira et al 14 …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…, 8 Esthetic perception and economic value of orthodontic appliances among adults was investigated by Feu et al 10 who found that sex and age influence perception of orthodontic appliance attractiveness. Walton et al 11 found a statistically significant difference between sex and age, concluding that American adolescents have a significant preference for metallic brackets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Esthetic perception of orthodontic appliances by Brazilian children and adolescents

Kuhlman¹,

Lima²,

Duplat³

et al. 2016

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The objective of this present study was to understand how children and adolescents perceive esthetic attractiveness of a variety of orthodontic appliances. It also analyzed preferences according to patients' age, sex and socioeconomic status. Methods: A photograph album consisting of eight photographs of different orthodontic appliances and clear tray aligners placed in a consenting adult with pleasing smile was used. A sample of children or adolescents aged between 8 and 17 years old (n = 276) was asked to rate each image for its attractiveness on a visual analog scale. Comparisons between the appliances attractiveness were performed by means of nonparametric statistics with Friedman's test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison post-hoc test. Correlation between appliances and individuals' socioeconomic status, age, sex, and esthetic perception was assessed by means of Spearman's correlation analysis. Results: Attractiveness ratings of orthodontic appliances varied nonsignificantly for children in the following hierarchy: traditional metallic brackets with green elastomeric ligatures > traditional metallic brackets with gray elastomeric ligatures > sapphire esthetic brackets; and for adolescents, as follows: sapphire esthetic brackets > clear aligner without attachments > traditional metallic brackets with green elastomeric ligatures. The correlation between individuals' socioeconomic status and esthetic perception of a given appliance was negative and statistically significant for appliances such as the golden orthodontic brackets and traditional metallic brackets with green elastomeric ligatures. Conclusion: Metal appliances were considered very attractive, whereas aligners were classified as less attractive by children and adolescents. The correlation between esthetic perception and socioeconomic status revealed that individuals with a higher socioeconomic level judged esthetics as the most attractive attribute. For those with higher economic status, golden orthodontic brackets and traditional metallic brackets with green elastomeric ligatures were assessed as the worst esthetic option.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Esthetic perception of orthodontic appliances by Brazilian children and adolescents

Kuhlman¹,

Lima²,

Duplat³

et al. 2016

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[1][2][3] Esthetic wires and esthetic brackets are the principal components of esthetic labial orthodontics. Ion implantation and surface coating are two surface treatments used to improve the esthetic characteristics of an orthodontic archwire; these processes cover the metallic archwires with a superficial layer, changing their optical properties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro biocompatibility of nickel-titanium esthetic orthodontic archwires

Rongo

Valletta

Bucci

et al. 2016

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To investigate the cytotoxicity of nickel-titanium (NiTi) esthetic orthodontic archwires with different surface coatings. Materials and Methods: Three fully coated, tooth-colored NiTi wires (BioCosmetic, Titanol Cosmetic, EverWhite), two ion-implanted wires (TMA Purple, Sentalloy High Aesthetic), five uncoated NiTi wires (BioStarter, BioTorque, Titanol Superelastic, Memory Wire Superelastic, and Sentalloy), one b-titanium wire (TMA), and one stainless steel wire (Stainless Steel) were considered for this study. The wire samples were placed at 37uC in airtight test tubes containing Dulbecco's Modified Eagle's Medium (0.1 mg/mL) for 1, 7, 14, and 30 days. The cell viability of human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) cultured with this medium was assessed by the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. Data were analyzed by a twoway analysis of variance (a 5 .05). Results: The highest cytotoxic effect was reached on day 30 for all samples. The archwires exhibited a cytotoxicity on HGFs ranging from "none" to "slight," with the exception of the BioTorque, which resulted in moderate cytotoxicity on day 30. Significant differences were found between esthetic archwires and their uncoated pairs only for BioCosmetic (P 5 .001) and EverWhite (P , .001). Conclusions: Under the experimental conditions, all of the NiTi esthetic archwires resulted in slight cytotoxicity, as did the respective uncoated wires. For this reason their clinical use may be considered to have similar risks to the uncoated archwires. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:789-795.)

show abstract

“…These studies have concluded that clear aligners and simulated lingual appliances are the most attractive treatment modality, followed by ceramic appliances and then metal appliances [6,23]. Even older children tend to rate clear orthodontic appliances higher than younger children [24]. However, despite the increased ratings of attractiveness of ceramic brackets, attractiveness did vary with wire selection and tie variation [23].…”

Section: Orthodontic Appliances and Estheticsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…However, despite the increased ratings of attractiveness of ceramic brackets, attractiveness did vary with wire selection and tie variation [23]. Ceramic brackets with discolored ties were rated lower in overall acceptability when compared to other esthetic appliances [24]. In 2009, Berto et al [25] examined the smile esthetics of several different versions of the same full-face photograph.…”

Section: Orthodontic Appliances and Estheticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthodontic Appliances and Esthetics

Shah

Goje

et al. 2017

Adv. J. Grad. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facial attractiveness plays a key role in orthodontic treatment. The esthetics of a patient may be hindered by wearing of orthodontic appliances. Recently, the orthodontic market has experienced phenomenal growth in the development and production of orthodontic appliances that are designed to appeal to the patient consumer. Traditionally, the options for bracket style or appliance design were considerably limited for both the patient and provider. However, a shifting paradigm toward dental esthetics, increased demand for orthodontic treatment, consumer driven desire of esthetic treatment alternatives, and a competitive orthodontic industry and profession have all contributed to the development and production of alternative orthodontic appliances and new bracket styles. Orthodontic patients and practitioners are now presented with a variety of treatment options previously unavailable. Just as each orthodontic appliance is unique in its esthetic qualities, each also has biomechanical benefits and potential limitations. For a practitioner providing bracket options for patients, selecting which bracket to offer becomes a function of both esthetics and functionality, the one will be esthetically acceptable to the patient and clinically efficient for the doctor. Though many studies have sought to compare and quantify the clinical efficiency of bracket systems, few studies have investigated the patient perception of appliance esthetics. This review discusses various aspects of orthodontic appliances relating to the esthetics of an individual.

show abstract

Orthodontic appliance preferences of children and adolescents

Abstract: Children's preferences for orthodontic appliances differ by age and sex. Child and adolescent preferences differ from adult preferences.

Cited by 95 publications

References 13 publications

Esthetic perception of orthodontic appliances by Brazilian children and adolescents

Esthetic perception of orthodontic appliances by Brazilian children and adolescents

In vitro biocompatibility of nickel-titanium esthetic orthodontic archwires

Orthodontic Appliances and Esthetics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About