Patients’ Perceptions To Reduced Orthodontic Treatment Time In Saudi Arabia

Figures & data

Table 1 Characteristics Of Participants (N = 200)

Variables	Frequency	Percent
Age
≤18 years old	85	42.5
>18–25 years old	101	50.5
>25–45 years old	13	6.5
>45 years old	1	0.5
Gender
Male	65	32.5
Female	135	67.5
Nationality
Saudi	160	80
Non-Saudi	40	20
Education
Less than 4 years of college	148	74.0
Four years of college	47	23.5
Postgraduate degree	5	2.5
Annual income (SR)
<10,000	104	52
10,000–30,000	78	39
>30,000–70,000	12	6
>70,000	6	3
How do you pay your treatment fee?
Governmental service free of charge	50	25
Self-pay	135	67.5
Insurance	15	7.5

Table 2 Frequencies And Percentages Of Responses To Perceptions Towards The Duration Of Orthodontic Treatment (N = 200)

	Frequency	Percent %	Significance Between Groups According To The Following Categories (p<0.05)
			Age	Gender	Annual Income
How many years have you been in treatment?
<1 year	65	32.5	0.408	0.063	0.110
1–2 years	98	49
>2–3 years	18	9
>3 years	19	9.5
How strongly do you agree that orthodontic treatment takes too long?
Strongly agree	112	56	0.884	0.001**	0.014*
Somewhat agree	54	27
Neutral	23	11.5
Somewhat disagree	8	4
Strongly disagree	3	1.5
How long do you expect your orthodontic treatment to take?
<12 months	92	46	0.280	0.535	0.348
12–18 months	62	31
>18–24 months	35	17.5
>24 months	11	5.5
How long would you wish your orthodontic treatment to last?
<6 months	111	55.5	0.255	0.025*	0.653
6–12 months	60	30
>12–18 months	22	11
>18–24 months	6	3
>24 months	1	0.5

Notes: A significant difference in the participants’ perception to orthodontic duration was reported according to gender (**p<0.01) and annual income (*p<0.05) and a significant difference and in their wishes for shorter orthodontic duration was reported according to gender only (*p<0.05).

Table 3 Frequencies, Percentages, And Group Comparison According To Age, Gender And Annual Income Of Responses To Ranking The Preferences For Additional Procedures For A 25% To 30% Reduction In Treatment Time (N = 200). Significance Level Set At p<0.05

	Willingness To Undergo Additional Procedures (1 Most Willing - 5 Least Willing); n (%)					Significance Between Groups According To The Following Categories (p<0.05)
	1	2	3	4	5	Age	Gender	Annual Income
Customized wires	105 (52.5%)	32 (16.0%)	28 (14.0%)	7 (3.5%)	28 (14.0%)	0.577	0.500	0.853
Corticotomies	28 (14.0%)	40 (20.0%)	20 (10.0%)	20 (10.0%)	92 (46.0%)	0.442	0.237	0.614
FDA approved teeth vibrators	35 (17.5%)	81 (40.5%)	41 (20.5%)	19 (9.5%)	24 (12.0%)	0.442	0.058	0.661
Piezocision	25 (12.5%)	31 (15.5%)	37 (18.5%)	65 (32.5%)	42 (21.0%)	0.923	0.385	0.859
FDA approved drug injections	47 (23.5%)	35 (17.5%)	67 (33.5%)	23 (11.5%)	28 (14.0%)	0.914	0.951	0.181

Notes: No significant differences in ranking were observed between the groups according to age, gender and annual income were reported (p>0.05).

Table 4 Frequencies, Percentages, And Group Comparison According To Age, Gender And Annual Income Of Responses To Ranking The Preferences For Additional Procedures With The Estimated Reduction In Treatment Time As Shown In The Table (N = 200). Significance Level Set At p<0.05

Procedure Type (Percentage Reduction In Treatment Time)	Procedures Ranking (1 Most Willing - 5 Least Willing); n (%)					Significance Between Groups According To The Following Categories (p<0.05)
	1	2	3	4	5	Age	Gender	Annual income
Customized wires (25–35%)	114 (57.0%)	35 (17.5%)	20 (10.0%)	15 (7.5%)	16 (8.0%)	0.255	0.611	0.069
Corticotomies (50%)	26 (13.0%)	47 (23.5%)	30 (15.0%)	21 (10.5%)	76 (38.0%)	0.349	0.027*	0.831
FDA approved teeth vibrators (30%)	49 (24.5%)	74 (37.0%)	49 (24.5%)	11 (5.5%)	17 (8.5%)	0.327	0.634	0.345
Piezocision (50%)	31 (15.5%)	35 (17.5%)	32 (16.0%)	64 (32.0%)	38 (19.0%)	0.735	0.032*	0.133

Notes: No significant differences in ranking were observed between the groups according to age, and annual income were reported (p>0.05). A significant difference in ranking was reported according to gender for corticotomoies and piezocision only (*p<0.05).

Table 5 Frequencies, Percentages And Group Comparison According To Age, Gender And Annual Income Of Responses To Ability To Pay To Reduce Orthodontic Treatment Time (N = 200). Significance Level Set At p<0.05

	Ability To Pay	Significance Between Groups According To The Following Categories (p<0.05)
	Frequency & Percentages	Age	Gender	Annual Income
Very able	35 (17.5%)	0.081	0.017*	0.001**
Somewhat able	60 (30.0%)
Neutral	54 (27.0%)
Somewhat unable	32 (16.0%)
Very unable	19 (9.50%)

Notes: No significant differences in responses were reported between the groups according to age for all procedures (p>0.05), while significant differences in responses between the groups were reported according to gender (*p<0.05) and annual income (**p<0.01).

Table 6 Frequencies, Percentages, And Group Comparison According To Age, Gender And Annual Income Of Responses To Willingness To Pay For Each Procedure Assessed (N = 200). Significance Level Set At p<0.05

	Willingness To Pay; n (%)					Significance Between Groups According To The Following Categories (p<0.05)
	Most Willing	Somewhat Willing	Neutral	Somewhat Unwilling	Most Unwilling	Age	Gender	Annual Income
Customized wires	81 (40.5%)	40 (20.0%)	40 (20.0%)	23 (11.5%)	16 (8.0%)	0.645	0.406	0.515
Corticotomies	19 (9.5%)	43 (21.5%)	39 (19.5%)	18 (9.0%)	81 (40.5%)	0.418	0.055	0.113
FDA approved teeth vibrators	47 (23.5%)	60 (30.0%)	53 (26.5%)	19 (9.5%)	21 (10.5%)	0.109	0.688	0.002**
Piezocision	23 (11.5%)	33 (16.5%)	45 (22.5%)	52 (26.0%)	47 (23.5%)	0.547	0.126	0.052
FDA approved drug injections	54 (27.0%)	36 (18.0%)	61 (30.5%)	23 (11.5%)	26 (13.0%)	0.837	0.258	0.017*

Notes: No significant differences in responses between the groups according to age and gender were reported for all procedures (p>0.05). However, for the annual income, a significant difference in responses was reported for the FDA approved teeth vibrators (**p<0.01) and the FDA approved drug injections only (*p<0.05).

Table 7 Frequencies, Percentages, And Group Comparison According To Age, Gender And Annual Income Of Responses To Willingness To Increase In Treatment Fees For Each Additional Procedure Claimed To Reduce Treatment Time (N = 200). Significance Level Set At p<0.05

	Percentage Increase In Treatment Fees; n (%)			Significance Between Groups According To The Following Categories (p<0.05)
	10–20%	30–40%	50%	Age	Gender	Annual Income
Customized wires	120 (60.0%)	37 (18.5%)	43 (21.5%)	0.327	0.027*	0.023*
Corticotomies	160 (80.0%)	34 (17.0%)	6 (3.0%)	0.484	0.281	0.117
FDA approved teeth vibrators	119 (59.5%)	59 (29.5%)	22 (11.0%)	0.416	0.015*	0.046*
Piezocision	159 (79.5%)	31 (15.5%)	10 (5.0%)	0.350	0.794	0.521
FDA approved drug injections	117 (58.5%)	66 (33.0%)	17 (8.5%)	0.410	0.384	0.020*

Notes: No significant differences in responses between the groups according to age and gender were reported for all procedures (p>0.05). However, for the annual income, a significant difference in responses was reported for the FDA approved teeth vibrators (**p<0.01) and the FDA approved drug injections only (*p<0.05).

Table 8 Frequencies, Percentages, And Group Comparison According To Age, Gender And Annual Income Of Responses To Increase In Treatment Fees For A Specified Reduction In Treatment Time (N = 200). Significance Level Set At p<0.05

		Percentage Increase In Treatment Fees; n (%)			Significance Between Groups According To The Following Categories (p<0.05)
		10–20%	30–40%	50%	Age	Gender	Annual Income
Percentage reduction in treatment time	10%	167 (83.5%)	17 (8.5%)	16 (8.0%)	0.160	0.700	0.678
	20%	160 (80.0%)	36 (18.0%)	4 (2.0%)	0.098	0.809	0.536
	30%	117 (58.5%)	76 (38.0%)	7 (3.5%)	0.109	0.783	0.246
	40%	114 (57.0%)	80 (40.0%)	6 (3.0%)	0.067	0.841	0.045*
	50%	105 (52.5%)	37 (18.5%)	58 (29.0%)	0.280	0.633	0.258

Notes: No significant difference in responses between the groups according to age and gender was reported for all procedures (p>0.05). However, for the annual income, a significant difference in responses was reported for the 40% reduction in treatment time only (*p<0.05).