RESUMO
Objective@#To evaluate the reasons influencing the preferences for a certain type of orthodontic appliance over another among prospective patients (PP) and orthodontists. @*Methods@#A total of 49 PP and 51 orthodontists were asked about their preferences for the following appliances: clear aligners (CA), lingual metallic brackets (LMB), polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets, and buccal metallic brackets (BMB). The participants rated the importance of 17 potential reasons that would explain their choices. The reasons that contributed most to these preferences were identified. Non-parametric tests (Fisher’s exact, χ2 and Mann–Whitney tests) and multivariate analyses (regression and discriminant analysis) were used to assess the data (α = 0.05). @*Results@#CA and BMB were the most chosen appliances by PP and orthodontists, respectively.LMB was the most rejected option among both groups of participants (p < 0.001). Rates of the importance of pain/discomfort, smile esthetics, finishing details, and feeding/speech impairment showed the highest differences between PP and orthodontists (p < 0.0005). Discriminant analyses showed that individuals who considered treatment time and smile esthetics as more important were more likely to prefer CA, while those who prioritized finishing details and cost were more likely to choose BMB (p < 0.05). @*Conclusions@#Reasons related to comfort and quality of life during use were considered as more important by PP, while those related to the results and clinical performance of the appliances were considered as more relevant by orthodontists.
RESUMO
Objective@#To evaluate the reasons influencing the preferences for a certain type of orthodontic appliance over another among prospective patients (PP) and orthodontists. @*Methods@#A total of 49 PP and 51 orthodontists were asked about their preferences for the following appliances: clear aligners (CA), lingual metallic brackets (LMB), polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets, and buccal metallic brackets (BMB). The participants rated the importance of 17 potential reasons that would explain their choices. The reasons that contributed most to these preferences were identified. Non-parametric tests (Fisher’s exact, χ2 and Mann–Whitney tests) and multivariate analyses (regression and discriminant analysis) were used to assess the data (α = 0.05). @*Results@#CA and BMB were the most chosen appliances by PP and orthodontists, respectively.LMB was the most rejected option among both groups of participants (p < 0.001). Rates of the importance of pain/discomfort, smile esthetics, finishing details, and feeding/speech impairment showed the highest differences between PP and orthodontists (p < 0.0005). Discriminant analyses showed that individuals who considered treatment time and smile esthetics as more important were more likely to prefer CA, while those who prioritized finishing details and cost were more likely to choose BMB (p < 0.05). @*Conclusions@#Reasons related to comfort and quality of life during use were considered as more important by PP, while those related to the results and clinical performance of the appliances were considered as more relevant by orthodontists.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to perform in-vitro evaluation to compare 1) shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive remnant index (ARI), and color change between self-etched and acid-etched primers; 2) the SBS, ARI and color change between direct and indirect bonding; and 3) the enamel roughness (ER) between 12-blade bur and aluminum oxide polisher debonding methods. METHODS: Seventy bovine incisors were distributed in seven groups: control (no bonding), direct (DTBX), and 5 indirect bonding (ITBX, IZ350, ISONDHI, ISEP, and ITBXp). Transbond XT Primer was used in the DTBX, ITBX, and ITBXp groups, flow resin Z350 in the IZ350 group, Sondhi in the ISONDHI group, and SEP primer in the ISEP group. SBS, ARI, and ER were evaluated. The adhesive remnant was removed using a low-speed tungsten bur in all groups except the ITBXp, in which an aluminum oxide polisher was used. After coffee staining, color evaluations were performed using a spectrophotometer immediately after staining and prior to bonding. RESULTS: ISONDHI and ISEP showed significantly lower SBS (p < 0.01). DTBX had a greater number of teeth with all the adhesive on the enamel (70%), compared with the indirect bonding groups (0–30%). The ER in the ITBX and ITBXp groups was found to be greater because of both clean-up techniques used. CONCLUSIONS: Direct and indirect bonding have similar results and all the primers used show satisfactory adhesion strength. Use of burs and polishers increases the ER, but polishers ensure greater integrity of the initial roughness. Resin tags do not change the color of the teeth.
