Abstract
Aim: To investigate and compare patient perceptions and satisfaction regarding traditional braces and clear aligners.
Materials and methods: In this qualitative, interpretive study, a total of 40 participants were recruited from a public institution and a private clinic. Participants were over the age of 18 years and categorised into six groups, dependent on treatment type and stage. A qualitative questionnaire, asking 16 open-ended questions was distributed by email and was hosted online using XM Qualtrics. All responses to the questionnaire were organised into themes using NVIVO and were then analysed using the Braun and Clarke reflexive thematic analysis approach.
Results: Patient perceptions towards braces were primarily influenced by family, friends and research on the internet, while clear aligner consumers' perceptions appeared to be greatly influenced by social media. Patients generally perceived braces to be unaesthetic, painful and inconvenient. Clear aligners were considered aesthetic, but also associated with possible pain, increased oral hygiene practices and reported clinical limitations. Throughout treatment, braces users were less concerned regarding the aesthetics of their appliances when compared to the pain and other faced inconvenience. Clear aligner patients were mostly satisfied with the aesthetics of their appliance and least satisfied with the inconvenience of having to insert and remove them before and after meals.
Conclusion: Braces users relied on dentists and family for information, while aligner users sought online sources and social media. Braces were associated with poor visible aesthetics and discomfort, while aligners were preferred for their discrete appearance and convenience. Braces affected eating and oral hygiene to a greater extent, while aligners required frequent removal for meals, which posed challenges. Negative experience perceptions continued post-treatment for wearers of braces but did not for users of aligners. Treatment choice should consider patient priorities and case complexity, but also the manner by which consumers seek information and evaluate experience expectations related to pain and aesthetics. (Aust Orthod J 2025; 41: 320-331.