Adult Patients’ Perceptions And Preferences Toward Accelerated Orthodontic Treatment Perceptions of Accelerated Orthodontic Treatment: Perceptions of Accelerated Orthodontic Treatment

Abstract

Statement of the Problem: Prolonged orthodontic treatment may discourage adults from initiating or continuing orthodontic care. Several approaches have been proposed to accelerate orthodontic treatment, but their acceptance by patients may vary according to invasiveness and cost.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate adult patients’ perceptions of orthodontic treatment duration, their acceptance and preferences regarding invasive and non-invasive approaches to accelerate treatment, and their willingness to pay additional fees.

Materials and Methods: This hospital-based cross-sectional study included adult patients receiving orthodontic treatment at İstanbul Yeni Yüzyıl University Faculty of Dentistry between October and December 2021. A 21-item questionnaire adapted from a previously published survey was administered electronically through Google Forms. The questionnaire assessed demographic characteristics, perceptions and expectations regarding treatment duration, acceptance and ranking of acceleration techniques, and willingness to pay additional fees. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25. Friedman’s test with pairwise post-hoc comparisons, Spearman correlation, and rank-biserial correlation were used, with statistical significance set at p<0.05.

Results: Of 300 distributed questionnaires, 295 were returned and 293 eligible participants were included. Overall, 87.3% of participants agreed that orthodontic treatment takes a long time, while 85.7% considered prolonged treatment a reason why adults may avoid orthodontic treatment. Although only 14.7% expected treatment to last less than one year, 65.5% desired treatment to be completed within one year. Overall, 70.9% were willing to undergo an additional procedure to accelerate treatment. Customized wires were the most accepted approach (89.1%), followed by vibration devices (69.6%), whereas intraoral injected drugs (28.7%), piezocision (8.2%), and corticotomy (5.2%) were less accepted. Nearly half of the participants (48.4%) were willing to pay higher monthly fees for shorter treatment.

Conclusions: Adult patients demonstrated a strong preference for shorter orthodontic treatment. Non-invasive approaches, particularly customized wires and vibration devices, were substantially more acceptable than invasive procedures. Financial considerations also influenced willingness to pay for treatment acceleration.