ABSTRACT
Introduction:
This study aims to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between clear aligners and conventional fixed braces. Orthodontic treatments not only focus on functional outcomes but also patient satisfaction, comfort, and aesthetics. Understanding PROs can guide treatment decisions for better patient-centered care.
Methods:
A comparative study involving 150 orthodontic patients treated with either clear aligners or conventional braces was conducted. The PROs evaluated included comfort, aesthetics, oral hygiene maintenance, and speech impairment. Surveys were administered at the beginning and at regular intervals during treatment. Data were analyzed using statistical tests to compare the two groups.
Results:
Clear aligners showed superior outcomes in comfort and aesthetics, with a significant difference (P < 0.05) compared to fixed braces. Patients with conventional braces reported more difficulties with oral hygiene and speech. However, both groups had similar overall treatment satisfaction.
Conclusion:
Clear aligners are associated with higher comfort and aesthetic satisfaction, while conventional braces may be less favorable in terms of hygiene and speech. PROs play a crucial role in orthodontic treatment selection, emphasizing the need for personalized approaches based on patient preferences.
KEYWORDS: Aesthetic satisfaction, clear aligners, conventional fixed braces, orthodontic treatment, patient-reported outcomes
INTRODUCTION
Orthodontic treatments, such as clear aligners and conventional fixed braces, aim to correct dental malocclusions and improve oral health. While both options are effective in aligning teeth, their impact on patient comfort, aesthetics, and daily activities varies significantly.[1,2] Clear aligners are marketed as more aesthetically pleasing and comfortable, but they require patient compliance. Conventional fixed braces, on the other hand, have a longstanding history of success, particularly in complex cases, though they can be less comfortable and harder to maintain for oral hygiene.[3,4]
“Patient-reported outcomes (PROs)” provide essential insights into patient preferences, comfort, and satisfaction during orthodontic treatment. By focusing on parameters like comfort, aesthetics, oral hygiene maintenance, and speech difficulties, this study aims to compare the PROs between clear aligners and conventional fixed braces. Such data can offer valuable guidance for clinicians in choosing the most appropriate treatment for their patients, based on both clinical efficacy and patient satisfaction. The study’s goal is to contribute to a more personalized orthodontic care model, which is increasingly relevant in contemporary practice.[1,5]
METHODS
This study recruited 150 orthodontic patients aged 18–40, divided equally into two groups: clear aligners and conventional fixed braces. The parameters assessed include as follows:
Comfort during treatment.
Aesthetic satisfaction.
Ease of oral hygiene.
Speech impairment.
Patients completed a survey at the start of the treatment and at subsequent three-month intervals. Data were analyzed using independent t-tests for continuous variables and Chi-square tests for categorical variables. A significance level of P < 0.05 was applied.
RESULTS
The findings from Table 1 indicate that patients using clear aligners reported significantly higher comfort levels (mean score of 8.5 ± 1.2) compared to those with conventional fixed braces (mean score of 6.2 ± 1.8). In terms of aesthetic satisfaction, 90% of patients using clear aligners were satisfied with the appearance of their orthodontic appliance, whereas only 65% of those with conventional braces reported the same. Additionally, speech impairment was notably lower in the clear aligner group, with only 5% of patients reporting any issues, compared to 20% in the conventional braces group.
Table 1.
Comparative analysis of comfort and esthetic satisfaction
| Group | Comfort (Mean±SD) | Aesthetic satisfaction (%) | Speech impairment (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clear aligners | 8.5±1.2 | 90 | 5 |
| Conventional braces | 6.2±1.8 | 65 | 20 |
Table 2 shows that 85% of patients using clear aligners found it easy to maintain oral hygiene during treatment, whereas only 60% of patients with conventional braces reported the same. The overall satisfaction scores were also higher for the clear aligner group, with a mean satisfaction score of 8.8 ± 1.1, compared to 7.2 ± 1.4 for the conventional braces group. Furthermore, treatment duration was shorter for clear aligner users, with an average treatment period of 14 ± 2 months, compared to 18 ± 3 months for conventional braces patients.
Table 2.
Oral hygiene and overall satisfaction
| Group | Oral hygiene maintenance (%) | Overall satisfaction (Mean±SD) | Treatment duration (Months) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clear aligners | 85 | 8.8±1.1 | 14±2 |
| Conventional braces | 60 | 7.2±1.4 | 18±3 |
DISCUSSION
The findings from this study highlight the superior PROs for clear aligners in terms of comfort and aesthetics. Aligners are often preferred due to their transparent, removable nature, which contributes to better comfort levels and fewer aesthetic concerns during social interactions.[4,5] Conventional fixed braces, despite their efficacy in treating complex malocclusions, often result in discomfort, especially during the initial treatment stages, and present more difficulties in oral hygiene maintenance.[6,7] The bulkier structure of braces may also contribute to speech impairment, an issue that was significantly less reported by patients using clear aligners in this study.
The previous research supports these findings, indicating that clear aligners tend to result in better patient compliance due to comfort and ease of cleaning.[8] However, clear aligners may not be suitable for all types of malocclusions, especially more severe cases that require precise control over tooth movement.[9] It is also worth noting that the treatment duration was shorter for clear aligners compared to conventional braces in this study, which aligns with existing literature indicating quicker results for mild to moderate cases.[10]
This study is limited by the relatively short follow-up period and reliance on self-reported data. Future research should aim to include long-term assessments and consider clinical efficacy in parallel with PROs to provide a comprehensive evaluation of both treatment options. Nevertheless, the clear preference for clear aligners in terms of patient comfort and aesthetics suggests that orthodontists should consider patient preferences alongside clinical indications when recommending treatment.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, patient-reported outcomes suggest that clear aligners are preferred over conventional fixed braces, particularly in terms of comfort, aesthetics, and ease of maintaining oral hygiene. These findings emphasize the importance of integrating patient preferences into orthodontic treatment planning to enhance satisfaction and compliance. However, the choice of treatment should be personalized, taking into account the severity of the malocclusion and the patient’s specific needs.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
Nil.
REFERENCES
- 1.Papadimitriou A, Mousoulea S, Gkantidis N, Kloukos D. Clinical effectiveness of Invisalign®orthodontic treatment:A systematic review. Prog Orthod. 2018;19:37. doi: 10.1186/s40510-018-0235-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Paim J, Souza LFD, Fialho T, Borba DBM, Freitas KMS, Cotrin P, et al. Assessment of patients'knowledge and preferences for the use of orthodontic aligners. J Orthod. 2024;51:251–7. doi: 10.1177/14653125241229456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. Elsevier Health Sciences. 2012 [Google Scholar]
- 4.Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL. Efficacy of clear aligners in controlling orthodontic tooth movement:A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2015;85:881–9. doi: 10.2319/061614-436.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ke Y, Zhu Y, Zhu M. A comparison of treatment effectiveness between clear aligner and fixed appliance therapies. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19:24. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0695-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ay ZY, Sayin MO, Ozat Y, Goster T, Atilla AO, Bozkurt FY. Appropriate oral hygiene motivation method for patients with fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2007;77:1085–9. doi: 10.2319/101806-428.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Weir T. Clear aligners in orthodontic treatment. Aust Dent J. 2017;62((Suppl 1)):58–62. doi: 10.1111/adj.12480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Ben Gassem AA. Does clear aligner treatment result in different patient perceptions of treatment process and outcomes compared to conventional/traditional fixed appliance treatment:A literature review. Eur J Dent. 2022;16:274–85. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1739441. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Djeu G, Shelton C, Maganzini A. Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128:292–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Jaber ST, Hajeer MY, Sultan K. Treatment effectiveness of clear aligners in correcting complicated and severe malocclusion cases compared to fixed orthodontic appliances:A systematic review. Cureus. 2023;15:e38311. doi: 10.7759/cureus.38311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]