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.

Introduction: Adherence to dietary advice and proper oral hygiene practices during orthodontic treatment are critical to maintaining good oral health and achieving successful treatment results. Thus, understanding patients’ habits and practices before, during, and after orthodontic treatment is needed to ensure better oral health-related behavior among these patients. Purpose: To investigate sugar-related dietary habits, visits to dental hygienists and dentists, and oral hygiene practices among patients during orthodontic treatment and after treatment compared to patients before treatment. Methods: A cross-sectional self-administered survey collected data from 375 patients (aged 10 years and older) from the Orthodontic Department at King Abdulaziz University Dental Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Patients were grouped according to their history of receiving orthodontic treatment into: patients before orthodontic treatment, patients during treatment, and patients after treatment. The survey assessed sugar-related dietary habits, frequency of visits to hygienists and dentists, and oral hygiene practices. Results: Patients during orthodontic treatment and those after treatment were less likely to eat sticky food compared to patients before treatment (OR=0.4, 95% CI=0.2– 0.9 and OR=0.5, 95% CI=0.3– 0.9, respectively). No significant differences were found in the odds of dental visits among the groups. Compared to patients before orthodontic treatment, patients during treatment and patients after treatment had higher odds of tooth brushing twice or more per day (OR=4.8, 95% CI=1.7– 14.3, and OR=4.0, 95% CI=1.2– 13.6, respectively) and were more likely to brush for an adequate time (OR=2.6, 95% CI=1.6– 4.4 and OR=1.9, 95% CI=1.0– 3.5, respectively). Moreover, the likelihood of flossing once daily was higher in patients during treatment and in patients after treatment relative to those before treatment. However, only patients during orthodontic treatment used interdental brushes more than patients before treatment. Conclusion: Patients’ oral health-related behavior seems to improve during and after orthodontic treatment. The findings of this study suggest that orthodontists can play a role in improving oral hygiene practices among their patients. More reinforcement of dietary instructions and periodic dental and hygiene visits is needed during orthodontic follow-up appointments.

Parents’ awareness of malocclusion and the appropriate timing to seek orthodontic consultation for their children has a substantial impact on children’s orthodontic treatment. This cross-sectional study aims to investigate parents’ awareness of malocclusion and orthodontic consultation of their children and the influence of parents’ demographics on their awareness level. An electronic survey collected information about participants’ demographics and awareness about malocclusion and orthodontic consultation of children. A total of 473 parents living in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, participated in the study. The average awareness level among parents was moderate (3.09 ± 1.4). Male gender and unemployment were associated with low orthodontic awareness levels relative to moderate awareness (OR = 3.3, 95% CI = 1.8–5.8 and OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.1–3.8, respectively). Former or current orthodontic treatment was associated with high awareness levels (OR = 3.9, 95% CI = 2.4–6.5). There is still a need to raise the awareness of Saudi parents about malocclusion and orthodontic consultations for their children. Orthodontic awareness-raising campaigns should be designed to include fathers and parents with low socioeconomic status. The findings of this study also suggest that orthodontists can enhance their patient’s awareness of malocclusion and orthodontic consultation for their children.

Aim: To investigate the relationship between post orthognathic surgery changes in soft and hard tissue cephalometric variables in Class II and Class III patients and quality of life (QoL) measured using a condition-specific QoL questionnaire and to determine cephalometric predictors of the overall OQLQ after surgery. Methods: The sample included 50 orthodontic patients, 28 Class II and 22 Class III skeletal relationships whose treatment included orthognathic surgery. Correlations between cephalometric changes and Orthognathic Quality of Life Questionnaire (OQLQ) were tested by Pearson’s correlation. Multiple linear regression was used to determine cephalometric predictors of the overall OQLQ after surgery. Results: In Class II patients, OQLQ before surgery and changes in SNA were significant predictors for OQLQ after surgery. For Class III patients, OQLQ after surgery was significantly correlated with the change in mandibular plane angle and lower face height (r = 0.6 and r = 0.5 respectively). The decrease in facial angle was negatively correlated with OQLQ (r = -0.4). Mandibular plane angle, mandibular length, and OQLQ before surgery were significant predictors for OQLQ after surgery. Conclusion: QoL improved for Class II and III after orthognathic surgery. Changes in certain cephalometric measurements seem to predict quality of life after orthognathic surgery.