Orthodontic treatment with Orthoworld Fastbraces®: a retrospective analysis of treatment duration, outcomes, and patient satisfaction

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of orthodontic treatment using Orthoworld FASTBRACES® and assess patient satisfaction with various treatment parameters. A total of 559 eligible patients out of 20,240 cases treated between 2010 and 2023 were included in this review. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the type of brackets used: 29 patients with ceramic brackets and 530 patients with metal brackets. Following completion of orthodontic treatment, patients were invited to complete a comprehensive questionnaire, which assessed treatment duration, number of visits, brackets and wires used, types of issues encountered, patient understanding of treatment, overall comfort level, compliance, and satisfaction with the speed of treatment. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 20,240 orthodontic cases treated with Orthoworld FASTBRACES® between 2010 and 2023. From this pool, 559 patients met the inclusion criteria for this study. The adult patient group was considered age 18 and older. The adult patient cohort was divided into two groups: 27 patients with ceramic brackets and 368 patients with metal brackets. All patients underwent comprehensive orthodontic treatment using the Orthoworld FASTBRACES® system. Results: Among the 559 patients included in this review, a detailed analysis of treatment outcomes and adult patient satisfaction was performed. The mean treatment duration was calculated for both the ceramic bracket group (n = 363.04 days) and the metal bracket group (n = 439.20 days). The average number of visits required for each group was recorded at 16.82 days for the ceramic bracket group and 14.67 days for the metal bracket group. During treatment, various issues were encountered and categorized as bracket-related, wire-related, tooth-related, patient- related, allergic reactions, soft tissue irritation, bracket placement issues, performance-related issues, and hard tissue complications. Metal group had the highest number of issues with patients complaining of tooth issues (n=32), bracket issues (n=18), and soft-tissue issues (n=8). Both groups reported low numbers ( n < 8) for bracket performance issues (metal: n=4; ceramic n=0), placement issues (metal: n=2; ceramic n=1), wires issues (metal: n=5; ceramic n=0), hard tissue issues (metal: n=3; ceramic n=0), ingestion issues (metal: n=1; ceramic n=0), and allergic reactions (n=0 for both groups). Following the completion of orthodontic treatment, patients were asked to complete a questionnaire evaluating their understanding of the treatment, overall comfort level, compliance, and satisfaction with the speed of treatment. Patient responses were collected and analyzed to determine the rating of patient understanding, comfort, compliance, and happiness with the treatment duration. The average score for patient responses ranged between 3.14 to 3.42 (i.e., above average) for treatment evaluation survey (Avg: 3.25 ceramic group vs 3.37 metal group). Conclusion: This analysis of orthodontic treatment with Orthoworld FASTBRACES® provides valuable insights into treatment outcomes and patient satisfaction. The findings shed light on the treatment duration, number of visits, brackets and wires utilized, and types of issues encountered during the course of treatment. Patient feedback regarding their understanding of treatment, comfort level, compliance, and satisfaction with the speed of treatment further contributes to the assessment of FASTBRACES® as an orthodontic treatment modality. The metal bracket group had a larger number of cases and a slightly longer average duration of treatment compared to the ceramic bracket group. However, the differences in average scores for patient understanding, comfort, satisfaction, and compliance were minimal between the two groups.