Comparison of Tooth Color and Enamel and Dentinal Thickness between Orthodontically Treated and Untreated Individuals.

This study compared tooth color and enamel and dentinal thickness between orthodontically treated and untreated individuals. (1) Methods: A matched case-control study was conducted. The sample included 26 patients who had received orthodontic treatment and 31 matched controls. The color assessment was performed subjectively using the VITA 3D-Master (VM) shade guide and objectively using the VITA Easyshade (VE) spectrophotometer. Differences in L*, a*, and b* (lightness, red/green, and blue/yellow) were calculated. The color change was evaluated using ΔE*ab and the whiteness index (WID). Tooth structure thickness (labiolingual, labial enamel, and labial dentin) was evaluated using cone-beam computerized tomography. The correlations between overall tooth color and tooth structure thickness were evaluated. (2) Results: A total of 228 teeth were evaluated. Color assessment using VM showed significant differences between orthodontically treated and untreated teeth (p < 0.001), while VE revealed no significant differences. Both groups showed no difference in tooth enamel and dentinal thickness. Significant differences in tooth color (p < 0.05) were observed between genders. Both VM and VE showed weak to moderate correlations with tooth color and enamel and dentinal thickness (p < 0.05). (3) Conclusions: Orthodontic treatment may demonstrate visually perceptible but acceptable and clinically undetectable tooth color alteration.

Adult Perceptions of Different Orthodontic Appliances.

Introduction: Pursuing an esthetically-pleasing orthodontic outcome, orthodontic patients must consider and choose from the different available options of orthodontic appliance. Practitioners need to be better informed of their customers' preferences to make better practice management decisions and satisfy their patients' needs. PURPOSE: To explore adult laypeople's perceptions of the attractiveness, acceptability, preference and economic value of different orthodontic appliances when they consider these appliances for themselves and for their children. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional survey included 199 adults (110 females). The average age of participants was 27.7 years. Participants answered a questionnaire evaluating and comparing multiple smiling images of an adult wearing different orthodontic appliances. Participants rated each appliance for: (1) attractiveness on a Likert scale; (2) acceptability of having the appliance placed for themselves and their children (with a yes/no response); (3) preference (by ranking all appliances in order); and (4) economic value (by providing the additional amount they are willing to pay for each appliance for themselves and their children). RESULTS: We found a statistically significant difference in the attractiveness scores between the different orthodontic appliances (p< 0.0001). The most attractive appliances were clear aligners and lingual brackets. The least attractive appliances were colored o-tied-brackets followed by shaped-brackets. Clear aligners were the most acceptable appliances among our participants to have placed on themselves (86.9%) and their children (84.9%). Shaped brackets were the least acceptable appliances among our participants to have placed on themselves (24.1%) and their children (36.2%). The most preferred appliances were lingual brackets (39.2%), followed by clear aligners (34.17%). The least preferred appliances were colored o-tied-brackets (4%). Participants varied with regards to how much more they were willing to pay for each of the different orthodontic appliances. The majority were willing to pay more for clear aligners and lingual brackets to have them placed on themselves but not to have them placed on their children. CONCLUSION: Adults preferred more innovative esthetic appliances over traditional ones and were willing to pay more to have them placed on themselves but not on their children.