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.

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.

Introduction: Patient compliance is crucial for achieving optimal outcomes in clear aligner (CA) therapy. Compliance may be influenced by various factors, including demographics, level of education, doctor-patient interaction, and personality traits based on the Big Five Inventory (BFI), which assesses openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. This study investigates the relationship between personality traits and compliance among CA patients. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 67 participants aged 12-60 undergoing CA treatment in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Patients completed an online questionnaire that assessed compliance behavior and personality traits using the BFI-10 tool. Data were statistically analyzed using SPSS software, version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY), to examine correlations between personality traits, demographic factors, and adherence to CA therapy. Compliance was scored based on adherence to follow-up visits and aligner wear time. Result: The study revealed that 34 participants (50.75%) demonstrated high adherence to the prescribed regimen. Males showed significantly higher compliance than females (p ≤ 0.05). Participants aged 12-34 exhibited the highest adherence rates (p ≤ 0.05), and those undergoing treatment for one year or less were also more compliant (p ≤ 0.05). Notably, satisfaction with one's smile did not significantly correlate with adherence (p > 0.05), contradicting the assumption that dissatisfaction with appearance drives better compliance. Furthermore, no significant association was identified between personality traits across any BFI domain and adherence. Conclusion: Despite the hypothesis that personality traits influence patient compliance, this study did not find a significant correlation. These findings suggest that factors other than personality traits may be more critical to adhering to CA treatment. The results highlight the need for further research to explore additional variables that may impact patient compliance in orthodontic therapy.

Introduction: The effect of headgear on the space available for the eruption of upper third molars needed further investigation. Only a few studies looked at the after-treatment effect of headgear on that space, and none have evaluated the long-term effect after the average age of third molar eruption. Therefore, this retrospective study evaluated the short and long-term effects of cervical headgear on the space and eruption of the maxillary third molars and their long-term eruption status. Materials and Methods: Records of Class II cases treated with cervical headgear were collected at the following time points: (T1) before treatment, (T2) after treatment, and (T3) taken at least 4 years after T2. An untreated control sample was collected from the Bolton-Brush study records. They were matched for age at each time point and malocclusion. Lateral cephalograms were used to measure the distance from the distal surface of the maxillary first molar (U6) to the pterygoid vertical plane (PTV). The third molar status at T3 was categorized into five groups: impacted, extracted, erupted, congenitally missing, and formation stage. Thirty-three cases were included in the cervical headgear group and 19 in the control group. Results: The position of U6 changed significantly between the headgear and control group at T2 but was similar at T3. In the headgear group, the U6 was significantly distalized (3.3 ±2.9 mm) between T1 and T2 (P=0.006), however, there was a significant relapse of 5.9 (±4.6) mm between T2 and T3 (P<0.001). In the control group, the distance between U6 and PTV increased significantly from T1 to T2 (4.8 ±4.4mm) with minimal change from T2 to T3 (1.5 ±4.8mm). There was no significant relationship between headgear use and third molar status (p=0.108). Conclusion: Headgear caused a temporary decrease in the U6-PTV distance that was recovered later. This decrease was not observed in the control group. Using cervical headgear to correct Class II malocclusion does not increase the risk of upper third molar impaction.