BackgroundThe objective of this study was to investigate the characteristics of emergencies and the requirement for emergency treatment after the suspension of orthodontic appointments. The attitude towards orthodontic treatment preference was evaluated as well, including receiving orthodontic treatment and the preference for orthodontic appliances.Subjects and methodsAn electronic questionnaire was distributed to the patients, including 4 sections: Section 1 – demographic and basic information; Section 2 – the characteristics of emergencies and emergency treatment requirements; Section 3 – the NRS-11 for pain and Manchester Orofacial Pain Disability Scale used to evaluate the intensity of orofacial pain and disability; and Section 4 – attitudes towards receiving orthodontic treatment and appliance preference. Descriptive statistics, Pearson’s chi-square test, Wilcoxon's rank-sum test and stepwise generalized linear model (GLM) were performed with significance set atP< 0.05.ResultMost participants’ (91.61%) follow-up appointments were suspended. The emergency rate and emergency treatment requirements were not different between the fixed appliance (FA) and clear aligner (CA) groups. Patients who reported emergencies (P< 0.01) in the FA group (P< 0.05) and some emergencies in the FA (P< 0.05) suffered worse pain and disability. More FA participants preferred alternative appliances (P< 0.05) due to pain and disability (P< 0.05).ConclusionFA patients’ emergencies caused worse pain and disability when orthodontic appointments were suspended. Pain and disability were not the causes of emergency treatment requirements. The CA group seemed to show a tendency towards orthodontic appliance preference, which was an ideal modality to weather the epidemic, combined with telemedicine.