ReviewProgress in orthodontics2026
Determinants of public preference for orthodontic appliances and treatment providers: a scoping review.
Review in Progress in orthodontics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaypeople can choose from a variety of orthodontic care pathways. It is in the clinician's best interest to understand their preferences in order to tailor consumer engagement. This scoping review maps the evidence concerning laypeople's preferences for orthodontic providers and appliances.
methodsThe review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Two reviewers conducted a systematic search and an independent screening process across five electronic databases until December 2025.
resultsA total of 56 studies (48 cross-sectional questionnaires; seven qualitative; one mixed methods) comprising 16,271 laypeople across 17 countries were included. Forty-two studies examined perspectives for orthodontic appliances, and 20 studies investigated providers. Specialist orthodontists were consistently the most preferred treatment providers, primarily associated with perceived higher quality and expertise. Direct-to-consumer (DTC) treatment appealed to a minority and was associated with lower cost, self-perceived easier-to-treat malocclusion and convenience. Adults preferred and were willing to pay more for aesthetic appliances, whereas children and adolescents perceived metallic braces as more aesthetic. Pragmatic appliance features such as effectiveness, comfort, and treatment outcomes often outweighed appearance, especially among informed or experienced patients. Common public misperceptions included confusion between general dentists and orthodontists, and overestimation of DTC safety and effectiveness.
conclusionWhile DTC and aligners appeal to the public demand for aesthetics and convenience, preference for orthodontists and fixed appliances remains strong, driven by perceived quality and the social acceptability of metal braces in children and adolescents. Better public and in-chair education is recommended to address misperceptions and guide better-informed decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42821041What 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.