Esthetic perception of clear aligner therapy attachments using eye-tracking technology

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Thai, Jessica Kimberly
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Araujo, Eustaquio, McCray, Julie, Schneider, Patricia Pigato [UNESP], Kim, Ki Beom
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