Esthetic perception of clear aligner therapy attachments using eye-tracking technology
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
Texto Completo: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.09.014 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/200674 |
Resumo: | Introduction: The purpose of this research was to assess and compare esthetic perceptions of clear aligner therapy with attachments and esthetic brackets by measuring differences in eye fixations using eye-tracking technology. Methods: The sample involved 250 adult subjects. The subjects gave verbal consent, then viewed photographs showing 4 variations of orthodontic appliances: clear aligner control with minimal attachments, clear aligner with anterior and posterior attachments, esthetic brackets, and clear aligner with posterior attachments. Images were displayed for 6 seconds each on a computer monitor. Location and time to first fixation, total fixation duration, and total visit count and duration for each type of appliance were measured. Subjects were then asked to complete an online survey. Results: Participants spent the least amount of time looking at the photograph of the control, followed by those of the ceramic brackets, posterior attachments, and anterior and/or posterior attachments. The anterior and/or posterior image had the least number of visits but garnered the longest visit duration (1.32 visits averaging 0.74 seconds per visit). This was followed by the images of the posterior attachments (1.40 visits, 0.70 seconds per visit), ceramic brackets (1.43 visits, 0.65 seconds per visit), and minimal attachments control (1.45 visits, 0.61 seconds per visit). The hierarchy of most preferred appliances across all 250 respondents was as follows: minimal attachments control, ceramic brackets, posterior attachments, and anterior and/or posterior attachments. Overall, 88.4% of subjects would compromise appliance esthetics during treatment for a better outcome (n = 221). Conclusions: Eye-tracking data show that time to the first fixation was negatively correlated with its survey ranking and that an increase in attachments led to an increase in total fixation duration. There is a general desire for clear aligners without attachments and ceramic brackets over clear aligners with multiple attachments. Survey data suggest that although respondents viewed appliance esthetics as highly important, nearly all would compromise appliance esthetics during treatment if it resulted in a better outcome. |
id |
UNSP_cafd69310b4f54a642abe7336adfd902 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/200674 |
network_acronym_str |
UNSP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository_id_str |
2946 |
spelling |
Esthetic perception of clear aligner therapy attachments using eye-tracking technologyIntroduction: The purpose of this research was to assess and compare esthetic perceptions of clear aligner therapy with attachments and esthetic brackets by measuring differences in eye fixations using eye-tracking technology. Methods: The sample involved 250 adult subjects. The subjects gave verbal consent, then viewed photographs showing 4 variations of orthodontic appliances: clear aligner control with minimal attachments, clear aligner with anterior and posterior attachments, esthetic brackets, and clear aligner with posterior attachments. Images were displayed for 6 seconds each on a computer monitor. Location and time to first fixation, total fixation duration, and total visit count and duration for each type of appliance were measured. Subjects were then asked to complete an online survey. Results: Participants spent the least amount of time looking at the photograph of the control, followed by those of the ceramic brackets, posterior attachments, and anterior and/or posterior attachments. The anterior and/or posterior image had the least number of visits but garnered the longest visit duration (1.32 visits averaging 0.74 seconds per visit). This was followed by the images of the posterior attachments (1.40 visits, 0.70 seconds per visit), ceramic brackets (1.43 visits, 0.65 seconds per visit), and minimal attachments control (1.45 visits, 0.61 seconds per visit). The hierarchy of most preferred appliances across all 250 respondents was as follows: minimal attachments control, ceramic brackets, posterior attachments, and anterior and/or posterior attachments. Overall, 88.4% of subjects would compromise appliance esthetics during treatment for a better outcome (n = 221). Conclusions: Eye-tracking data show that time to the first fixation was negatively correlated with its survey ranking and that an increase in attachments led to an increase in total fixation duration. There is a general desire for clear aligners without attachments and ceramic brackets over clear aligners with multiple attachments. Survey data suggest that although respondents viewed appliance esthetics as highly important, nearly all would compromise appliance esthetics during treatment if it resulted in a better outcome.Private practiceDepartment of Orthodontics Saint Louis UniversityDepartment of Orthodontics School of Dentistry of Araraquara São Paulo State University (UNESP) AraraquaraDepartment of Orthodontics School of Dentistry of Araraquara São Paulo State University (UNESP) AraraquaraPrivate practiceSaint Louis UniversityUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)Thai, Jessica KimberlyAraujo, EustaquioMcCray, JulieSchneider, Patricia Pigato [UNESP]Kim, Ki Beom2020-12-12T02:13:05Z2020-12-12T02:13:05Z2020-09-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article400-409http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.09.014American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, v. 158, n. 3, p. 400-409, 2020.0889-5406http://hdl.handle.net/11449/20067410.1016/j.ajodo.2019.09.0142-s2.0-85087220324Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedicsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-09-26T14:21:36Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/200674Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestrepositoriounesp@unesp.bropendoar:29462024-09-26T14:21:36Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Esthetic perception of clear aligner therapy attachments using eye-tracking technology |
title |
Esthetic perception of clear aligner therapy attachments using eye-tracking technology |
spellingShingle |
Esthetic perception of clear aligner therapy attachments using eye-tracking technology Thai, Jessica Kimberly |
title_short |
Esthetic perception of clear aligner therapy attachments using eye-tracking technology |
title_full |
Esthetic perception of clear aligner therapy attachments using eye-tracking technology |
title_fullStr |
Esthetic perception of clear aligner therapy attachments using eye-tracking technology |
title_full_unstemmed |
Esthetic perception of clear aligner therapy attachments using eye-tracking technology |
title_sort |
Esthetic perception of clear aligner therapy attachments using eye-tracking technology |
author |
Thai, Jessica Kimberly |
author_facet |
Thai, Jessica Kimberly Araujo, Eustaquio McCray, Julie Schneider, Patricia Pigato [UNESP] Kim, Ki Beom |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Araujo, Eustaquio McCray, Julie Schneider, Patricia Pigato [UNESP] Kim, Ki Beom |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Private practice Saint Louis University Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Thai, Jessica Kimberly Araujo, Eustaquio McCray, Julie Schneider, Patricia Pigato [UNESP] Kim, Ki Beom |
description |
Introduction: The purpose of this research was to assess and compare esthetic perceptions of clear aligner therapy with attachments and esthetic brackets by measuring differences in eye fixations using eye-tracking technology. Methods: The sample involved 250 adult subjects. The subjects gave verbal consent, then viewed photographs showing 4 variations of orthodontic appliances: clear aligner control with minimal attachments, clear aligner with anterior and posterior attachments, esthetic brackets, and clear aligner with posterior attachments. Images were displayed for 6 seconds each on a computer monitor. Location and time to first fixation, total fixation duration, and total visit count and duration for each type of appliance were measured. Subjects were then asked to complete an online survey. Results: Participants spent the least amount of time looking at the photograph of the control, followed by those of the ceramic brackets, posterior attachments, and anterior and/or posterior attachments. The anterior and/or posterior image had the least number of visits but garnered the longest visit duration (1.32 visits averaging 0.74 seconds per visit). This was followed by the images of the posterior attachments (1.40 visits, 0.70 seconds per visit), ceramic brackets (1.43 visits, 0.65 seconds per visit), and minimal attachments control (1.45 visits, 0.61 seconds per visit). The hierarchy of most preferred appliances across all 250 respondents was as follows: minimal attachments control, ceramic brackets, posterior attachments, and anterior and/or posterior attachments. Overall, 88.4% of subjects would compromise appliance esthetics during treatment for a better outcome (n = 221). Conclusions: Eye-tracking data show that time to the first fixation was negatively correlated with its survey ranking and that an increase in attachments led to an increase in total fixation duration. There is a general desire for clear aligners without attachments and ceramic brackets over clear aligners with multiple attachments. Survey data suggest that although respondents viewed appliance esthetics as highly important, nearly all would compromise appliance esthetics during treatment if it resulted in a better outcome. |
publishDate |
2020 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-12-12T02:13:05Z 2020-12-12T02:13:05Z 2020-09-01 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.09.014 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, v. 158, n. 3, p. 400-409, 2020. 0889-5406 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/200674 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.09.014 2-s2.0-85087220324 |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.09.014 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/200674 |
identifier_str_mv |
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, v. 158, n. 3, p. 400-409, 2020. 0889-5406 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.09.014 2-s2.0-85087220324 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
400-409 |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Scopus reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) instacron:UNESP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
instacron_str |
UNESP |
institution |
UNESP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
repositoriounesp@unesp.br |
_version_ |
1813546438960873472 |