ArticlePatient preference and adherence2019
Patients' Perceptions To Reduced Orthodontic Treatment Time In Saudi Arabia.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychosocial Determinants of Patient Satisfaction in Orthodontic Treatment: A Pilot Cross-Sectional Survey in North-Eastern.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- The Perception of Adults and Adolescents of Undergoing and Paying for Tooth Movement Acceleration Procedures in Turkey.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2022Article
- Socioeconomic Determinants of Willingness to Pay for Emergency Public Dental Services in Saudi Arabia: A Contingent Valuation Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Root resorption in relation to a modified piezocision technique.The Angle orthodontist · 2022Article
- Attitude towards Telemonitoring in Orthodontists and Orthodontic Patients.Dentistry journal · 2021Article
- Perception of Iraqi Orthodontists and Patients toward Accelerated Orthodontics.International journal of dentistry · 2021Article
- Young Adults' Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Invasive and Non-invasive Accelerated Orthodontic Treatment: A Comparative Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate patients' perceptions regarding orthodontic treatment duration, cost, and willingness to undergo different procedures and techniques available to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement in Saudi Arabia. PATIENTS AND
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted in Saudi Arabia from January to March 2019. Patients from multiple centers were electronically surveyed regarding their perception of orthodontic treatment duration, acceptance of appliances and techniques available to shorten the duration of orthodontic treatment, and how much increase in fees they were willing to pay for those appliances and techniques. Descriptive and group comparison statistics were conducted, and the significance level was set at p<0.05.
resultsThe response rate was 200/400 (50%): 50.5% were (>18-25 years old), 67.5% female, 80% Saudi, 67.5% self-pay and 52% with annual income <10,000 SR. A total of 83% of the participants agree that orthodontic treatment takes too long, and 55.5% wish it takes less than 6 months. The preferences for additional procedures were ranked in the following order: customized wires ranked 1 by 52.5%, followed by FDA (Food & Drug Administration) approved teeth vibrators by 40.5%, FDA approved drug injections by 33.5%, piezocision by 32.5%, and corticotomies by 46% of the participants. No significant differences in ranking between the groups according to age and annual income (p>0.05). 47.5% of the participants were able to pay for additional procedures. An increase in treatment fees was reported for up to (30-40%) for FDA approved teeth vibrators by 59% of the participants, followed by FDA approved drug injections by 33% of the participants. A significant difference in responses between the groups was reported according to gender and annual income (p<0.05).
conclusionMost of the patients strongly agreed that orthodontics treatment takes too long. The highest percentages of patients perceived customized wires as the most acceptable technique to undergo to shorten orthodontic treatment duration, followed by teeth vibrators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.