AIM: The aim of the present study was to collect personal data of patients treated solely with fixed lingual appliances. In addition, motivation and appliance acceptance were to be assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The collective comprised 98 patients from our orthodontic clinic (C) and from an orthodontic practice (P). In addition to personal data such as gender, age, profession and marital status, the questionnaire covered the following parameters: initial source of information, motivation, phonetic-functional impairment, and subjective assessment of the treatment outcome. RESULTS: Statistical analysis of the personal data revealed a characteristic type of patient with a preference for lingual treatment: females below 40 years of age, whose preference for the lingual technique was based primarily on esthetic considerations. The main impairment (65%) due to the lingual appliance was reported to be injury to or irritation of the tongue and the restricted functional space for the tongue. The phonetic-functional adaptation period was 1-3 weeks. 99% of the patients were content or very content with the treatment outcome. 87% would recommend the lingual technique without reserve to relatives and friends. The majority of the patients would have refused orthodontic treatment with the labial technique. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that treatment with a fixed lingual appliance appeals to a characteristic patient group. In general, the level of acceptance among patients was positive and impairments during the adaptation period were tolerated after 1-3 weeks. The lingual technique should be integrated into routine orthodontic practice.
AIM: The aim of the present study was to collect personal data of patients treated solely with fixed lingual appliances. In addition, motivation and appliance acceptance were to be assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The collective comprised 98 patients from our orthodontic clinic (C) and from an orthodontic practice (P). In addition to personal data such as gender, age, profession and marital status, the questionnaire covered the following parameters: initial source of information, motivation, phonetic-functional impairment, and subjective assessment of the treatment outcome. RESULTS: Statistical analysis of the personal data revealed a characteristic type of patient with a preference for lingual treatment: females below 40 years of age, whose preference for the lingual technique was based primarily on esthetic considerations. The main impairment (65%) due to the lingual appliance was reported to be injury to or irritation of the tongue and the restricted functional space for the tongue. The phonetic-functional adaptation period was 1-3 weeks. 99% of the patients were content or very content with the treatment outcome. 87% would recommend the lingual technique without reserve to relatives and friends. The majority of the patients would have refused orthodontic treatment with the labial technique. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that treatment with a fixed lingual appliance appeals to a characteristic patient group. In general, the level of acceptance among patients was positive and impairments during the adaptation period were tolerated after 1-3 weeks. The lingual technique should be integrated into routine orthodontic practice.