影响准患者和正畸医师对不同矫治器具偏好的原因。

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q1 Dentistry
Guido Artemio Marañón-Vásquez, Luísa Schubach da Costa Barreto, Matheus Melo Pithon, Lincoln Issamu Nojima, Matilde da Cunha Gonçalves Nojima, Mônica Tirre de Souza Araújo, Margareth Maria Gomes de Souza
{"title":"影响准患者和正畸医师对不同矫治器具偏好的原因。","authors":"Guido Artemio Marañón-Vásquez,&nbsp;Luísa Schubach da Costa Barreto,&nbsp;Matheus Melo Pithon,&nbsp;Lincoln Issamu Nojima,&nbsp;Matilde da Cunha Gonçalves Nojima,&nbsp;Mônica Tirre de Souza Araújo,&nbsp;Margareth Maria Gomes de Souza","doi":"10.4041/kjod.2021.51.2.115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the reasons influencing the preferences for a certain type of orthodontic appliance over another among prospective patients (PP) and orthodontists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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, χ<sup>2</sup> and Mann-Whitney tests) and multivariate analyses (regression and discriminant analysis) were used to assess the data (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CA and BMB were the most chosen appliances by PP and orthodontists, respectively. LMB was the most rejected option among both groups of participants (<i>p</i> < 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 (<i>p</i> < 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 (<i>p</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":49934,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Orthodontics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/92/8e/kjod-51-2-115.PMC7940807.pdf","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reasons influencing the preferences of prospective patients and orthodontists for different orthodontic appliances.\",\"authors\":\"Guido Artemio Marañón-Vásquez,&nbsp;Luísa Schubach da Costa Barreto,&nbsp;Matheus Melo Pithon,&nbsp;Lincoln Issamu Nojima,&nbsp;Matilde da Cunha Gonçalves Nojima,&nbsp;Mônica Tirre de Souza Araújo,&nbsp;Margareth Maria Gomes de Souza\",\"doi\":\"10.4041/kjod.2021.51.2.115\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the reasons influencing the preferences for a certain type of orthodontic appliance over another among prospective patients (PP) and orthodontists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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, χ<sup>2</sup> and Mann-Whitney tests) and multivariate analyses (regression and discriminant analysis) were used to assess the data (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CA and BMB were the most chosen appliances by PP and orthodontists, respectively. LMB was the most rejected option among both groups of participants (<i>p</i> < 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 (<i>p</i> < 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 (<i>p</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Journal of Orthodontics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/92/8e/kjod-51-2-115.PMC7940807.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Journal of Orthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2021.51.2.115\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2021.51.2.115","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

目的:探讨影响准患者(PP)和正畸医师对某一矫治器的偏好的原因。方法:对49名PP和51名正畸医师进行调查,了解他们对清洁矫正器(CA)、舌金属托槽(LMB)、多晶和单晶陶瓷托槽、颊金属托槽(BMB)的使用偏好。参与者对17个可能解释他们选择的原因的重要性进行了排序。确定了导致这些偏好的主要原因。采用非参数检验(Fisher精确检验、χ2检验和Mann-Whitney检验)和多变量分析(回归和判别分析)对资料进行评价(α = 0.05)。结果:CA和BMB分别是PP和正畸医师选择最多的矫治器。LMB是两组参与者中被拒绝最多的选项(p < 0.001)。疼痛/不适、微笑美学、整理细节和喂养/言语障碍的重要性率在PP和正畸医生之间差异最大(p < 0.0005)。判别分析显示,认为治疗时间和微笑美学更重要的个体更倾向于选择CA,而优先考虑完成细节和成本的个体更倾向于选择BMB (p < 0.05)。结论:PP认为与使用过程中的舒适性和生活质量相关的原因更为重要,而正畸医师认为与矫治器的效果和临床性能相关的原因更为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Reasons influencing the preferences of prospective patients and orthodontists for different orthodontic appliances.

Reasons influencing the preferences of prospective patients and orthodontists for different orthodontic appliances.

Reasons influencing the preferences of prospective patients and orthodontists for different orthodontic appliances.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Korean Journal of Orthodontics
Korean Journal of Orthodontics Dentistry-Orthodontics
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
10.50%
发文量
48
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Korean Journal of Orthodontics (KJO) is an international, open access, peer reviewed journal published in January, March, May, July, September, and November each year. It was first launched in 1970 and, as the official scientific publication of Korean Association of Orthodontists, KJO aims to publish high quality clinical and scientific original research papers in all areas related to orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. Specifically, its interest focuses on evidence-based investigations of contemporary diagnostic procedures and treatment techniques, expanding to significant clinical reports of diverse treatment approaches. The scope of KJO covers all areas of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics including successful diagnostic procedures and treatment planning, growth and development of the face and its clinical implications, appliance designs, biomechanics, TMJ disorders and adult treatment. Specifically, its latest interest focuses on skeletal anchorage devices, orthodontic appliance and biomaterials, 3 dimensional imaging techniques utilized for dentofacial diagnosis and treatment planning, and orthognathic surgery to correct skeletal disharmony in association of orthodontic treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信