Accessories in clear aligner therapy: Laypeople's expectations for comfort and satisfaction

Jussimar Scheffer Castilhos,Gil Guilherme Gasparello,Sergio Luiz Mota-JĂșnior,Giovani Ceron Hartmann,Luiz Fernando Iyda Miyagusuku,Matheus Melo Pithon,Orlando Motohiro Tanaka
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34172/joddd.40793
Abstract:Background: This study explored the layperson's perception of comfort, satisfaction, and willingness to use various accessories in clear aligner therapy. Methods: A total of 267 people analyzed standardized intraoral photographs of a female model in orthodontic treatment using: 1) only clear aligner (CA), the control group; 2) clear aligner+attachments (AT); 3) clear aligners+Cl II elastics (EL); 4) clear aligner+hybrid treatment with esthetic braces (HEB); 5) Clear aligner+hybrid treatment with metallic braces (HMB); 6) clear aligner+mini-implants (MI); 7) clear aligner+mini-implants and elastics for intrusion (MIE). In addition, a social media questionnaire was distributed to assess the willingness to undergo orthodontic treatment with various accessories. Results: There was a significant difference between CA and all the other groups (P<0.001), with CA being considered more comfortable and providing greater satisfaction compared to other accessories. Moreover, AT showed a significant difference in reducing treatment time compared to other groups. Conclusion: The CA was the most comfortable, exhibiting a higher satisfaction rate and a greater willingness to use it. The AT therapy was perceived as more comfortable and was associated with higher satisfaction and a greater likelihood of use, especially if it resulted in reduced treatment time. On the other hand, the participants reported that the HMB, MI, and MIE accessories were less comfortable.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?