Patient perceptions and oral impacts following labial and lingual biocreative therapy: A randomized clinical trial

• Published in: Journal of the world federation of orthodontists 2019-09, Vol.8 (3), p.95-99
• Main Authors: Sadek, Mais Medhat, Sabet, Noha Ezzat, Hassan, Islam Tarek
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anterior retraction; Biocreative therapy; Lingual; Oral impacts; Treatment satisfaction
• ISSN: 2212-4438; 2212-4438
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2019.05.001

The aim of this study was to compare patient satisfaction and oral impacts experienced by patients treated with labial or lingual biocreative therapy. Twenty-eight patients (17–25 years) were randomly divided into two groups: group 1, labial biocreative therapy type II, and group 2, lingual biocreative therapy. At the end of the retraction phase, patients were asked to complete a questionnaire to assess oral impacts caused by the appliance and patient satisfaction from treatment. Frequency and percent values were calculated for every question for both groups. Independent-sample t-test was conducted to assess differences between the two groups. Fischer exact test was used to compare the answers of the two groups with each question separately. Difficulty in chewing, pain, and discomfort caused by the appliance were the most commonly reported adverse effects of the appliance used by patients in both groups. Statistically highly significant differences were found between the two groups regarding appliance esthetics and social disability scale, whereas no significant differences were found for the other domains. Oral impacts are commonly experienced during both labial and lingual biocreative therapies. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups regarding functional limitation, physical pain, and adverse effects on quality of life. Patients treated with labial biocreative therapy were more annoyed by the appearance of the appliance and were more likely to be embarrassed compared with those treated by the lingual biocreative technique. Both groups had similar levels of treatment satisfaction. •Patient perceptions and oral impacts with labial and lingual biocreative therapy were compared.•Both groups had difficulty in chewing, pain, and discomfort caused by the appliance.•Functional limitation and physical pain were not significantly different between the 2 groups.•Patients in labial group were more annoyed by appliance esthetics and more likely to be embarrassed.•Both groups had similar levels of treatment satisfaction and would recommend it to others.