Figure 1 Practice used by orthodontists in Saudi Arabia by percentage

Respondents

N         %

Age

25 – 30 years

5          8

31 – 40 years

22         35

41 – 50 years

18      28.5

51 years and above

18      28.5

Gender

Male

50        80

Female

13        20

Nationality

Saudi

22       35

Non-Saudi

41       65

Qualification

PhD

24       38

Master

32       51

Others

7         11

Place of obtaining qualification

America

13        20

Europe

17        27

Arab countries

24       38

Other Places

9         15

Job Status

Academics and Consultants

15         24

Senior Specialists

11      17.5

Specialists

26        41

Residents

11      17.5

Table 1: Demographic data of respondent (N=63)

SN

Types of bracket

N

%

1

3M Unit

28

44.4

2

TP Ortho

2

3.2

3

American

20

31.7

4

Ormco

6

9.5

5

GAC

3

4.8

6

Ortho te

1

1.6

7

I used b

1

1.6

8

Ortho cl

1

1.6

9

Dentawru

1

1.6

Table 2: The commonly used bracket by the orthodontists

SN

Reason of orthodontic bracket purchase

N

%

1

Using it as an orthodontic student (Resident) and liked it

19

30.2

2

Quality of the Bracket

26

41.3

3

Customer Service

4

6.3

4

Ease of use

8

12.7

5

Cost

4

6.3

6

Being used by the practice

1

1.6

7

Popularity

1

1.6

Table 3: Reason of orthodontists purchase brackets from a specific company

Used

PhD
N = 24

Master
N = 32

Others
N = 7

Chi-Sqire (P value)

No  (%)         

No (%)

No  (%)

Self-ligating

19 (79.1)

24 (75.0)

6 (85.7)

0.809

Clear aligner therapy: Invisalgin

9 (37.5)

15 (46.8)

5 (71.4)

0.282

TADs

19 (79.1)

21 (65.6)

6 (85.7)

0.383

Cone-beam computerized tomography

20 (83.3)

26 (81,2)

2 (28.5)

0.007*

Digital imaging

22 (91.6)

26 (81.2)

6 (85.7)

0.545

Indirect bonding

22 (91.6)

18 (56.2)

3 (42.8)

0.006*

Lingual Orthodontics

19 (79.1)

10 (31.2)

1 (14.2)

0.000*

2-phase treatment

23 (95.8)

27 (84.3)

5 (71.4)

0.181

Functional appliance

23 (95.8)

32 (100)

3 (42.8)

0.000*

Table 4: Orthodontics used according to qualification

Used

Academic & Consultant
N = 15

Seni-Spec

N = 11

Specialist

N = 26

Resident & GP
N = 11

Chi-Sqire (P value)

No  (%)         

No (%)

No  (%)

No (%)

Self-ligating

13 (86.6)

9 (81.8)

20 (76.9)

7 (63.6)

0.557

Clear aligner therapy: Invisalgin

7 (46.6)

3 (27.2)

12 (46.1)

7 (63.6)

0.402

TADs

12 (80.0)

9 (81.8)

17 (65.3)

8 (72.7)

0.666

Cone-beam computerized tomography

13 (86.6)

8 (72.7)

21 (80.7)

6 (54.5)

0.249

Digital imaging

14 (93.3)

10 (90.9)

21 (80.7)

9 (81.8)

0.657

Indirect bonding

14 (93.3)

9 (81.8)

18 (69.2)

2 (18.1)

0.000*

Lingual Orthodontics

11 (73.3)

8 (72.7)

11 (42.3)

0 (0.0)

0.001*

2-phase treatment

13 (86.6)

11 (100)

23 (88.4)

8 (72.7)

0.290

Functional appliance

15 (100)

10 (90.9)

25 (96.1)

8 (72.7)

0.057

Table 5: Orthodontics used according to Professional classification

* Significant at the level of P<05

Used

America

N = 13

Europe

N = 17

Arab Countries

N = 24

Other Countries
N = 9

Chi-Sqire
(P value)

N (%)         

N (%)

N  (%)

N (%)

Self-ligating

10 (76.9)

13 (76.4)

17 (70.8)

9 (100)

0.353

Clear aligner therapy: Invisalgin

2 (15.3)

11 (64.7)

11 (45.8)

5 (55.5)

0.054

TADs

8 (61.5)

14 (82.3)

18 (75.0)

6 (66.6)

0.603

Cone-beam computerized tomography

11 (84.6)

15 (88.2)

17 (70.8)

5 (55.5)

0.225

Digital imaging

12 (92.3)

17 (100)

17 (70.8)

8 (88.8)

0.052

Indirect bonding

12 (92.3)

12 (70.5)

13 (54.1)

6 (66.6)

0.126

Lingual Orthodontic

12 (92.3)

11 (64.7)

6 (25.0)

1 (11.1)

0.000*

2-phase treatment

12 (92.3)

17 (100)

18 (75.0)

8 (88.8)

0.109

Functional appliance

12 (92.3)

17 (100)

20 (83.3)

9 (100)

0.191

Table 6: Orthodontics used according to place of qualification

*Significant at the level of P<05