TABLE 2.

Extracted data of included articles 6–10

Article number
General information	6	7	8	9	10
Title	Adolescents' perception of the quality of orthodontic treatment	Satisfaction with orthodontic treatment	Patient self‐reported satisfaction with maxillary anterior dental implant treatment	Satisfaction with orthodontic treatment outcome	The effect of esthetic consultation methods on acceptance of diastema‐closure treatment plan: a pilot study
Authors	Larsson, B. W.; Bergstrom, K.	Keles, F.; Bos, A.	Levi, A.; Psoter, W. J.; Agar, J. R.; Reisine, S. T.; Taylor, T. D.	Feldmann, I.	Almog, D.; Sanchez Marin, C; Proskin, H. M.; Cohen, M. J.; Kyrkanides, S.; Malmstrom, H.
Journal	Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences	The Angle Orthodontist	International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants	The Angle Orthodontist	Journal of the American Dental Association
Year of publication	2005	2013	2003	2014	2004
References	Scand J Caring Sci. 2005 Jun;19(2):95–101	Angle Orthod. 2013 May;83(3):507–11	Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003 Jan‐Feb; 18(1):113–20	Angle Orthod. 2014 Jul;84(4):581–7	J Am Dent Assoc. 2004 Jul;135(7):875–81

Study information
Study design	Cross‐sectional study	Trend study	Observational study	Observational study	Pilot study
Field of specialization	Orthodontics	Orthodontics	Prosthodontics	Orthodontics	Restorative dentistry
Country	Sweden	Netherlands	USA	Sweden	USA
University/private setting	Public dental service ‐ orthodontic clinic	University	University	Public dental service ‐ orthodontic clinic	University
Study period	2001	2008–2009	2000	n.a.	n.a.
Patient age	mean: 17, 1 years	<30 years	18–80 years, mean: 56 years	mean: 14.3 years	18–60 years, mean: 34.9 years
Gender distribution	47% male, 53% female	34.8% male, 65.2% female	47.4% male; 52.5% female	male: n = 54; female: n = 56	20.8% male, 79.2% female
Number of patients enrolled	151	115	78	110	24

Specific information
Purpose of the study	(1) Description of adolescent's perception of quality of care receiving orthodontic treatment. (2) Assessment of relationship between patient's perception of quality of orthodontic care and their self‐reported experiences of various outcome‐related aspects on the other.	The examination of patients' satisfaction with the received orthodontic treatment.	The assessment of the overall patient satisfaction with the treatment outcome.	The evaluation of the factors associated with treatment outcome satisfaction.	The assessment of preferred communication tools to help the patients best understand and visualize the treatment plan and esthetic changes.
Main findings	The implication of the patient in the decision‐making process enhanced the perception of quality of care. The possibility to participate in the SDM process contributed to an overall higher satisfaction rating. More active involvement of patients in the decision‐making process is suggested.	The dentist‐patient relationship was the most important factor contributing to patient satisfaction.	Communication between dentist and patient is important to achieve an optimal esthetic result that will be satisfactory to both parties, since their perceptions of esthetics do not necessarily coincide.	In order to improve orthodontic treatment outcome, a more active involvement of patients in the decision‐making process is suggested.	Digital computer‐imaging simulation is more effective in achieving treatment plan acceptance than the three other methods.
Tools used for patient communication/shared decision‐making	No tools specifically described, verbal communication only	No tools specifically described, verbal communication only	No tools specifically described, verbal communication only	No tools specifically described, verbal communication only	(1) Before/after photos of other patients; (2) Wax‐up on model of patient; (3) Intraoral mock‐up; (4) Digital computer‐imaging simulation. Every patient received every tool.
Assessment method	Quality from the Patient's perspective Questionnaire (QPP)	Questionnaire	Self‐administered questionnaire	Two Questionnaires	Two Questionnaires
Details of the assessment method	The QPP questionnaire was modified and adapted to fit this study. The quality of care as well as the outcome‐related aspects were included in this questionnaire.	58 items questionnaires with 11 items on satisfaction with doctor‐patient relationship. Questions about patient satisfaction and patient perspective on treatment outcome.	The 24 items, self‐administered, structured questionnaire was developed specifically for this project. Questions include satisfaction with information prior to treatment and satisfaction with the dentist.	First questionnaire prior to treatment: 11 items concerning treatment motivations and expectations. Second questionnaire: after active treatment at first visit in retention phase. Questions about satisfaction with treatment outcome, general quality of care, perceived pain, and discomfort during active treatment.	First questionnaire: given to patient directly after each consultation method with questions to determine the subject's perceptions regarding treatment plan acceptance. Second questionnaire: to compare the four methods and to determine the preferred method.