The Effect of Bonding Orthodontic Fixed Appliances on the Esthetic Self-Perception in Adults and Adolescents

Omar H Alkadhi^1*, Haifa E Alsalmi², Lama S Alsaleh³, Latifa M Alsewailem² and Shiama A Alhawas²

^*Correspondence: Omar H Alkadhi, Department of Preventive Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Saudi Arabia, Email:

Author info »

Introduction

Dental esthetic is the main driver for individuals seeking orthodontic treatment as they recognize the social impact of their smiles [1]. Compromised smiles were found to be unattractive by both dental professionals and laypeople as minor asymmetries as low as 0.5-2.0 mm in the smile can affect the perception of smile esthetic [2,3].

Many reports indicated that malocclusion has a social and psychological impact on individuals. The association between malocclusion and psychological and social statuses has been well established in the literature. Psychological negative effects of malocclusion worsen as the severity of malocclusion increases [4,5]. Moreover, quality of life decreases with malocclusion where low selfesteem and high esthetic concern were found to affect quality of life [6,7].

Zheng et al. used Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) to investigate the effect of different types of malocclusion during comprehensive orthodontic treatment on the quality of life. They found that there is a significant decrease in all the domains of OHIP-14 but at different stages of treatment based on the type of initial malocclusion [8]. Demirovic et al. investigated the difference in quality of life between treated and untreated orthodontic patients. It was found that participants who didn’t undergo orthodontic treatment had higher impact on quality of life compared to those who were treated [9].

Gazit-Rappaport examined the effect of orthodontic treatment on 69 participants before and after receiving the treatment. A significant decrease in all Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics (PIDAQ) components was observed after completion of treatment [10].

However, during orthodontic treatment, the appearance of metal brackets may compromise facial esthetic. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the psychosocial impact of dental esthetic in patients with metal fixed orthodontic appliances compared to patients without orthodontic fixed appliances using PIDAQ.

Materials and Methods

This is a cross-sectional study that was registered at the research center and ethical approval was obtained from the institutional review board.

The Arabic version of the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire (PIDAQ) by having one bilingual (Arabic-English) translator translating the original English questionnaire into Arabic and another bilingual translator translating it back to English and compared the final translation with the original. This self-reported and validated Arabic version of PIDAQ was used and distributed it in electronic format via social media (WhatsApp, Twitter, and Instagram) in addition to distributing the electronic form to patients in the waiting areas in orthodontic offices.

The target population was adults and adolescents seeking or have already started orthodontic treatment living in Saudi Arabia. The sample was divided into two groups. One group included participants undergoing orthodontic treatment with metal orthodontic fixed appliances (Group I), and a control group of individuals who are seeking orthodontic treatment but not undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (Group II).

Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire (PIDAQ)

PIDAQ is a psychometric instrument that was developed to measure the effects of dental esthetics on specific aspects of quality of life. Validity and reliability of PIDAQ have been tested. Twenty-three questions comprise PIDAQ that are distributed into 4 components. Each question is based on a Likert scale of 5 points (4: very strongly, 3: strongly, 2: somewhat, 1: a little, and 0: not at all). Each component measures a specific aspect of the quality of life, namely, dental self-confidence measured in 6 questions, social impact in 8 questions, psychological impact in 6 questions, and esthetic concern in 3 questions. It is important to note that all domains are scored negatively, except the self-confidence domain that is scored positively. The total score of PIDAQ can range from 0 to 92. The sum of scores of the components was calculated as well as the score for each component. As the score grows higher, the psychosocial negative effect increases [11].

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were reported and comparisons between groups for PIDAQ and its individual components were done using Mann-Whitney U t-test. The cut-off point was set at (p<0.05). The statistical software used was IBM SPSS version 27 statistical package (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.).

Results

756 responses were received. 402 participants in group I were undergoing orthodontic treatment (53.2%) and 354 in group II (46.8%) as controls that were seeking orthodontic treatment. The sample consisted of 120 males (15.9%) and 636 females (84.1%). 115 participants (15.2%) were aged between 12 to 18 years and 641 (84.8%) were above 18 years of age.

Normality tests were carried out using Shapiro-Wilk Test. Data were found to be not normally distributed (p<0.05). Comparing males and females in each group separately, no statistically significant differences were found between participants in all PIDAQ components (p>0.05) (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1: Comparison of PIDAQ components between males (n=56) and females (n=346) in group I using Mann-Whitney U test.

Table 2: Comparison of PIDAQ components between males (n=64) and females (n=290) in group II using Mann-Whitney U test.

PIDAQ total score and all its components was not found to be different among participants with different levels of education in group I (p>0.05) (Table 3).

Table 3: Comparison of PIDAQ components between participants with different education levels; high school of lower (n=101), bachelor’s degree or equivalent (n=280), and higher education (n=21) using Kruskal Wallis test.

Mean scores for PIDAQ and all its components are shown in Table 4 along with comparisons between the two groups.

Table 4: Comparison of PIDAQ components between group I (n=402) and group II (n=354) using Mann-Whitney U test.

A statistically significant increase was found in PIDAQ total score and all its components in group I compared to group II (p<0.05).

Discussion

Orthodontic treatment can be performed using a multitude of appliances including fixed and removable appliances, metal, ceramic, or polycarbonate materials. With the introduction of orthodontic treatment with lingual appliances, ceramic brackets and clear aligners, patients started to accept orthodontic treatment more than ever. This may be due to the fact that they are less obtrusive and they have a decreased effect on dental and facial appearance. In this study, the aim was to investigate the psychosocial impact of dental esthetics in patients with metal fixed orthodontic appliances compared to patients without orthodontic fixed appliances.

We opted to use PIDAQ as a standard and wellestablished questionnaire with proven internal validity [11]. We also used the translation-retranslation method to ensure the validity of the Arabic version as described in several studies [12,13].

In this study, it was found that metal orthodontic fixed appliances can hinder esthetic self-perception and compromise self-confidence, increase social impact and psychosocial impact, and esthetic concern of patients. Previous findings come in line with the findings of this study. Jeremiah et al. demonstrated that adults wearing orthodontic fixed appliances were less attractive than those without appliances. Moreover, the type of appliance can have an effect on attractiveness where metal and ceramic brackets were judged as less attractive compared to lingual appliances and clear aligners [14]. Stainless steel appliances, both conventional and self-ligating appliances, were the least attractive among different appliance types where the most acceptable and attractive type of appliances are clear aligners and lingual appliances [15]. Similar findings were reported by Alansari et al. as clear aligners were found to be more attractive compared to conventional appliances in both adults and children [16,17]. On the contrary, another study found that an immediate positive effect of orthodontic fixed appliances was observed in Brazilian adolescents [18]. While in a study Kuhlman et al. in Brazil it was reported that individuals saw themselves less attractive wearing orthodontic fixed appliances [19]. Interestingly, metallic brackets are seen to be improving attractiveness scores in adolescents and some young adults in some geographical areas [20].

In this study, gender and level of education did not influence self-confidence, psychosocial impact, social impact, and esthetic concern of participants in both groups. However, in one study, females were found to have a negative social effect of orthodontic fixed appliances [14]. more susceptible to social socioeconomic status was found to play a role in the choice, acceptance, attractiveness, and preference of orthodontic appliances [21]. The limitations of this study include the widespread of participants.

Conclusions

• The psychosocial impact is higher in participants with orthodontic fixed appliances compared to those who have not started treatment which indicates an increased negative psychosocial effect of bonding orthodontic fixed appliances in adults and adolescents.

• The total PIDAQ score, and individual components scores were similar in both males and females.

References

1. Lin F, Ren M, Yao L, et al. Psychosocial impact of dental esthetics regulates motivation to seek orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2016; 150:476-82.
2. Pinho S, Ciriaco C, Faber J, et al. Impact of dental asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2007; 132:748-53.
3. Al Taki A, Hayder Mohammed T, Mohammad Hamdan A. Influence of the smile line on smile attractiveness in short and long face individuals. Int J Dent 2017; 2017.
4. Velangi CS, Yavagal PC, Nagesh L. Dental Aesthetics and its psychosocial impact among adolescents: A cross-sectional survey. IJADS 2020; 6:184-188.
5. Bellot-Arcís C, Almerich-Silla JM. Psychosocial impact of malocclusion in Spanish adolescents. Korean J Orthod 2013; 43:193-200.
6. Kang JM, Kang KH. Effect of malocclusion or orthodontic treatment on oral health-related quality of life in adults. Korean J Orthod 2014; 44:304-11.
7. Dallé H, Vedovello SA, Degan VV, et al. Malocclusion, facial and psychological predictors of quality of life in adolescents. Community Dent Health 2019; 36:298-302.
8. Zheng DH, Wang XX, Su YR, et al. Assessing changes in quality of life using the oral health impact profile (OHIP) in patients with different classifications of malocclusion during comprehensive orthodontic treatment. BMC Oral Health 2015; 15:1-8.
9. Demirovic K, Habibovic J, Dzemidzic V, et al. Comparison of oral health-related quality of life in treated and non-treated orthodontic patients. Med Arch 2019; 73:113.
10. Gazit-Rappaport T, Haisraeli-Shalish M, Gazit E. Psychosocial reward of orthodontic treatment in adult patients. Eur J Orthod 2010; 32:441-6.
11. Klages U, Claus N, Wehrbein H, et al. Development of a questionnaire for assessment of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics in young adults. Eur J Orthod 2006; 28:103-11.
12. Göranson E, Norevall LI, Bågesund M, et al. Translation and validation of the Swedish version of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics questionnaire (PIDAQ) for adolescents. Acta Odont Scandinavica 2021; 79:241-7.
13. Bucci R, Rongo R, Zito E, et al. Translation and validation of the italian version of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics questionnaire (pidaq) among adolescents. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2017; 18:158-62.
14. Jeremiah HG, Bister D, Newton JT. Social perceptions of adults wearing orthodontic appliances: A cross-sectional study. Eur J Orthod 2011; 33:476-82.
15. Ziuchkovski JP, Fields HW, Johnston WM, et al. Assessment of perceived orthodontic appliance attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2008; 133:S68-78.
16. Alansari RA, Faydhi DA, Ashour BS, et al. Adult perceptions of different orthodontic appliances. Patient Preference Adherence 2019; 13:2119.
17. Alansari RA. Youth perception of different orthodontic appliances. Patient Preference Adherence 2020; 14:1011.
18. de Almeida AB, Leite IC, da Silva GA. Brazilian adolescents' perception of the orthodontic appliance: A qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2019; 155:490-497.
19. Fonseca LM, de Araújo TM, Santos AR, et al. Impact of metal and ceramic fixed orthodontic appliances on judgments of beauty and other face-related attributes. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2014; 145:203-206.
20. Kuhlman DC, Lima TA, Duplat CB, et al. Esthetic perception of orthodontic appliances by Brazilian children and adolescents. Dent Press J Orthod 2016; 21:58-66.
21. Feu D, Catharino F, Duplat CB, et al. Esthetic perception and economic value of orthodontic appliances by lay Brazilian adults. Dent Press J Orthod 2012; 17:102-114.