Effects of analgesics on orthodontic pain

Assessment of the Arabic patient-centered online information about orthodontic pain: A quality and readability assessment

BACKGROUND

This study assesses the quality and readability of Arabic online information about orthodontic pain. With the increasing reliance on the internet for health information, especially among Arabic speakers, it's critical to ensure the accuracy and comprehensiveness of available content. Our methodology involved a systematic search using the Arabic term for (Orthodontic Pain) in Google, Bing, and Yahoo. This search yielded 193,856 results, from which 74 websites were selected based on predefined criteria, excluding duplicates, scientific papers, and non-Arabic content.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For quality assessment, we used the DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and the Health on the Net (HON) code. Readability was evaluated using the Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) scores.

RESULTS

Results indicated that none of the websites received the HONcode seal. The DISCERN assessment showed median total scores of 14.96 (± 5.65), with low overall quality ratings. In JAMA benchmarks, currency was the most achieved aspect, observed in 45 websites (60.81%), but none met all four criteria simultaneously. Readability scores suggested that the content was generally understandable, with a median FKGL score of 6.98 and a median SMOG score of 3.98, indicating middle school-level readability.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals a significant gap in the quality of Arabic online resources on orthodontic pain, highlighting the need for improved standards and reliability. Most websites failed to meet established quality criteria, underscoring the necessity for more accurate and trustworthy health information for Arabic-speaking patients.

Low-level laser therapy and laser acupuncture therapy for pain relief after initial archwire placement : A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Pain is among the most unpleasant experience during fixed orthodontic therapy. This study compared the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and laser acupuncture therapy (LAT) in pain reduction after initial archwire placement.

METHODS

This randomized, parallel-group, single-blind clinical trial included 60 female patients who required four premolar extractions to relieve crowding. The subjects were randomly designated into four groups of 15. After placement of the initial orthodontic archwire, patients in group 1 took ibuprofen (400 mg), whereas those in group 2 received LLLT (808 nm, 200 mW, 2 J/cm2) on both buccal and lingual sides of the teeth. In group 3 (LAT), the laser (808 nm, 200 mW, 24 J/cm2) was applied bilaterally to acupuncture points (SI 18, ST 6, LI 4, SJ 2, and SJ 5). Subjects in group 4 received placebo laser treatment. Patients were requested to record the intensity of spontaneous pain, pain while biting with anterior teeth, and pain while biting with posterior teeth at different times using a visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The intensity of spontaneous and biting pain increased up to the first or second days following initial archwire placement and diminished to a negligible value by the seventh day. No significant difference was found between the study groups concerning spontaneous and biting pain at any timepoint of investigation (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

With the protocols used in the study, low-level laser therapy and laser acupuncture therapy were as effective as ibuprofen and placebo laser treatment for pain reduction in orthodontic patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

IRCT, IRCT20200622047886N1. Registered 2020-06-29; https://www.irct.ir/trial/49121.

Ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in children

BACKGROUND

Children often require pain management following surgery to avoid suffering. Effective pain management has consequences for healing time and quality of life. Ibuprofen, a frequently used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) administered to children, is used to treat pain and inflammation in the postoperative period.

OBJECTIVES

1) To assess the efficacy and safety of ibuprofen (any dose) for acute postoperative pain management in children compared with placebo or other active comparators. 2) To compare ibuprofen administered at different doses, routes (e.g. oral, intravenous, etc.), or strategies (e.g. as needed versus as scheduled).

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard Cochrane search methods. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and trials registries in August 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children aged 17 years and younger, treated for acute postoperative or postprocedural pain, that compared ibuprofen to placebo or any active comparator. We included RCTs that compared different administration routes, doses of ibuprofen and schedules.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We adhered to standard Cochrane methods for data collection and analysis. Our primary outcomes were pain relief reported by the child, pain intensity reported by the child, adverse events, and serious adverse events. We present results using risk ratios (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 43 RCTs that enroled 4265 children (3935 children included in this review). We rated the overall risk of bias at the study level as high or unclear for 37 studies that had one or several unclear or high risk of bias judgements across the domains. We judged six studies as having a low risk of bias across all domains. Ibuprofen versus placebo (35 RCTs) No studies reported pain relief reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen probably reduces child-reported pain intensity less than two hours postintervention compared to placebo (SMD -1.12, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.86; 3 studies, 259 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may reduce child-reported pain intensity, two hours to less than 24 hours postintervention (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.78; 5 studies, 345 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in adverse events compared to placebo (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.23; 5 studies, 384 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus paracetamol (21 RCTs) No studies reported pain relief reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen likely reduces child-reported pain intensity less than two hours postintervention compared to paracetamol (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.02; 2 studies, 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may slightly reduce child-reported pain intensity two hours to 24 hours postintervention (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.02; 6 studies, 422 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in adverse events (0 events in each group; 1 study, 44 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus morphine (1 RCT) No studies reported pain relief or pain intensity reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen likely results in a reduction in adverse events compared to morphine (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.83; risk difference (RD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4; 1 study, 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus ketorolac (1 RCT) No studies reported pain relief or pain intensity reported by the child, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen may result in a reduction in adverse events compared to ketorolac (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.96; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.04; NNTB 4; 1 study, 59 children; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite identifying 43 RCTs, we remain uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen compared to placebo or active comparators for some critical outcomes and in the comparisons between different doses, schedules and routes for ibuprofen administration. This is largely due to poor reporting on important outcomes such as serious adverse events, and poor study conduct or reporting that reduced our confidence in the results, along with small underpowered studies. Compared to placebo, ibuprofen likely results in pain reduction less than two hours postintervention, however, the efficacy might be lower at two hours to 24 hours. Compared to paracetamol, ibuprofen likely results in pain reduction up to 24 hours postintervention. We could not explore if there was a different effect in different kinds of surgeries or procedures. Ibuprofen likely results in a reduction in adverse events compared to morphine, and in little to no difference in bleeding when compared to paracetamol. We remain mostly uncertain about the safety of ibuprofen compared to other drugs.

Human Interleukin-1β Profile and Self-Reported Pain Monitoring Using Clear Aligners with or without Acceleration Techniques: A Case Report and Investigational Study

Introduction. There is a growing demand for more aesthetic, comfortable, and faster orthodontic treatments, and clear aligners emerged as a solution to fulfill this need. However, the effectiveness of clear aligners to treat complex malocclusions is yet contentious. The use of acceleration methods could improve the efficacy of clear aligners by stimulating cells' mechanobiology through numerous pathways, but this hypothesis is still poorly explored. Objective. We aimed to monitor the release profile of an inflammatory marker-the interleukin-1β-and to evaluate its relationship with self-reported pain scores with and without the use of acceleration techniques during an orthodontic treatment requiring difficult tooth movements with clear aligners. Case Report. Here, we report a case of a 46-year-old female patient who presented functional and aesthetic complaints. Intraoral examination revealed a diminished overjet and overbite, rotation of teeth 45 and 24, absence of teeth 25, 35, and 36, buccolingual dislocation of tooth 21, a tendency to a Class III malocclusion, and a 2 mm left deviation of the lower midline. This study is divided into three stimulation phases: no stimulation, mechanical vibration stimulation, and photobiomodulation. Interleukin-1β levels in gingival crevicular fluid samples from the pressure side of six selected teeth were evaluated at four time points after the orthodontic treatment onset. Pain monitoring in those teeth was performed using a visual analogue scale at the same time points. Results. Interleukin-1β protein production peaked 24 h after treatment onset. Complex movements were associated with increased self-reported pain. Conclusion. Clear aligners show limitations in solving complex tooth movements, even when combined with acceleration. The development of customized and programmable stimulation microdevices integrated into “smart aligners,” which could be designed to specifically stimulate the direction of movement and stimulation parameters and could constitute a solution to optimize the orthodontic tooth movement with clear aligners.

Chewing gum as a non-pharmacological alternative for orthodontic pain relief: A randomized clinical trial using an intention-to-treat analysis

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and chewing gum for orthodontic pain relief and to assess if chewing gum can be a non-pharmacological alternative for orthodontic pain relief.

Methods

The study enrolled 106 patients of both sexes, aged ≥ 12 years, with body weight > 50 kg, and mild-to-moderate dental crowding in the upper arch. After randomization and allocation concealment, the intervention groups were either administered with ibuprofen (400 mg) or acetaminophen (500 mg) or chewed sugar-free chewing gum immediately after initial archwire placement and every 6 hours for 1 week if the pain persisted. The control group did not receive any pain relief. The pain was assessed on a 100-mm visual analog scale at rest and while biting down at T1 (2 hours), T2 (24 hours), T3 (2 days), T4 (3 days), T5 (7 days), and T6 (21 days). Statistical analyses were performed using the Kruskal–Wallis and post-hoc Mann–Whitney U tests (α = 0.05).

Results

The chewing gum group experienced more pain relief than the ibuprofen group at while biting down at T3 (p = 0.04) and at rest at T4 (p < 0.001). The chewing gum group reported more pain relief than the acetaminophen and control groups while biting down at T3 (p = 0.03 and p = 0.0006, respectively) and T4 (both p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Chewing gum can be a non-pharmacological alternative for orthodontic pain relief at 2 and 3 days after initial archwire placement.

An intraoral device for weight loss: initial clinical findings

Introduction Obesity is a global epidemic, increasing the risk of many associated health issues.Aim The aim of this clinical study was to investigate the acceptability and tolerability of an intraoral device, designed to facilitate weight loss.Method Seven healthy obese participants were recruited. The device, which incorporated closed-field magnets with keepers to restrict mouth opening, was cemented to the participants' first molars. The participants were given a commercially available liquid diet for two weeks. The comfort and tolerability of the device were assessed using a quality of life questionnaire during review appointments at 1, 7 and 14 days and two weeks after device removal.Results The participants reached a mean weight loss of 6.36 (SD = 3.79) kilograms, which represents approximately 5.1% of their body weight. The participants had trouble pronouncing some words and felt tense and embarrassed 'only occasionally'. The participants 'hardly ever' reported a change in taste sensation or felt uncomfortable drinking. However, participants indicated that they occasionally had discomfort and felt that life in general was less satisfying. Qualitative analysis showed that the participants were happy with the outcome and were motivated to lose more weight.Conclusion The participants tolerated the device for a two-week period with satisfactory weight loss and were further motivated to continue their weight loss journey.

Effects of ibuprofen and low-level laser therapy on orthodontic pain by means of the analysis of interleukin 1-beta and substance P levels in the gingival crevicular fluid

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to compare the effects of ibuprofen and low-level laser therapy in alleviating orthodontic pain observed after elastomeric separator placement (ESP) by means of the analysis of interleukin 1‑beta (IL-1β) and substance P (SP) levels in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) and visual analog scale (VAS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 60 subjects requiring ESP for the banding of maxillary first molars were randomly assigned to the ibuprofen, laser, and control groups. The ibuprofen and control groups received, respectively, 400 mg ibuprofen and placebo lactose tablets orally 1 h before ESP; the laser group received a single low-level laser irradiation session immediately after ESP. GCF samples were collected immediately after ESP (day 0) and on days 1, 3, and 7. Pain intensity was evaluated using the VAS immediately after ESP (baseline) and at hours 2 and 6, as well as on days 1, 3, and 7.

RESULTS

Although IL-1β levels increased significantly on days 1, 3, and 7 compared to day 0, intergroup comparison results revealed insignificant differences. SP levels indicated insignificant within-group differences. Only the SP levels of the ibuprofen group showed a significant decrease on days 0 and 1 compared to the laser and control groups. In all groups, VAS scores increased from baseline to a peak level on day 1, followed by a significant decrease on days 3 and 7. Intergroup comparison results of VAS scores indicated less pain intensity in the ibuprofen group compared to the control group at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Only the ibuprofen group exhibited significant decreases in SP levels on days 0 and 1, as well as in VAS scores at baseline.

The efficacy of analgesics in controlling orthodontic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Patients who had gone through orthodontic treatment experienced pain and discomfort which could be the highest-ranking reason for treatment disturbance or early termination. Thus, this review aimed to assess the efficacy of analgesics on the relief of pain in orthodontic treatment.

Methods

A computerized literature search was conducted in the databases of EMBASE (via OVID, 1974 to 2019 Week 50), MEDLINE (via OVID, 1946 to Dec 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (December 2019). The Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manager 5.3 software was applied in the present study. And methodological quality was evaluated by the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

Results

We identified twelve publications including 587 patients in 19 randomized controlled trials. The results showed that the mean difference of naproxen in visual analogue scale (VAS) were − 1.45 (95% CI -2.72, − 0.19; P = .02), − 2.11 (95% CI -3.96, − 0.26; P = .03) and − 1.90 (95% CI -3.33, − 0.47; P = .009) in 2 h, 6 h and 24 h respectively. As for ibuprofen, the standard mean differences were − 1.10 (95% CI -1.49, − 0.71), − 1.63(95% CI -2.32, − 0.95) and − 1.34 (95% CI -2.12, − 0.55) at 2 h, 6 h, and 24 h, with the overall P values all < 0.001. The mean difference of acetaminophen is − 0.68, − 1.34, − 1.91 at three time points and the overall P values all < 0.01.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis suggests that the use of analgesics is effective for patients in controlling orthodontic pain. Ibuprofen and naproxen are both of stable analgesic effects which could peak at 6 h, while the analgesic effect of acetaminophen increases steadily from 2 h through 24 h. Compared with ibuprofen and acetaminophen, naproxen shows a stronger analgesic effect either at 2 h or 6 h, and its effect lasts to 24 h.

The effect of naproxen patches on relieving orthodontic pain by evaluation of VAS and IL-1β inflammatory factor: a split-mouth study

Introduction:

Pain related to orthodontic tooth movement is common and cause dissatisfaction and discomfort. Objective: The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of naproxen patches in pain control during orthodontic tooth separation, by means of visual analogue scale (VAS) and interleukin 1β (IL-1β) levels in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF).

Methods:

In this split-mouth triple-blind clinical trial, with 40 patients following separation, 5% naproxen or placebo patches were randomly placed on the upper right or left first molars every 8 hours. Pain intensity scores were determined after 2 and 6 hours, sleep time, 24 hours, days 2, 3 and 7 by the patients using a 100-mm VAS ruler. IL-1β levels in GCF were evaluated by ELISA at baseline, 1 and 24 hours and 7 days. Paired samples t-tests and two-way repeated measures ANOVA analysis of variance with a significance level of 0.05 were applied.

Results:

A total number of 30 patients (13 males and 17 females) finished the trial. Significant differences were found in pain scores (p< 0.0001) and IL-1β levels (p= 0.047) between naproxen and placebo groups. Lower pain scores were reported for the patients using naproxen patches at all time points, except 1 hour after separation. IL-1β levels were lower for the patients using naproxen patches only 1 hour after separation (p= 0.047). The peak of pain scores and IL-1β levels were calculated at 24 hours.

Conclusion:

In the light of VAS scores and IL-1β levels, naproxen patches reduced the pain caused by separator placement.

Influence of photobiomodulation on pain perception during initial orthodontic tooth movement

Abstract Introduction Laser in low intensity (LLI) has been used to reduce the discomfort and pain that is triggered by the forces applied during orthodontic treatment. Objective To evaluate the effect of LLI application in the pain perception of periodontal ligament initial compression, during orthodontic tooth movement; and to compare the effect of this therapy between men and women. Material and method The sample consisted of 30 volunteers, who needed orthodontic band placement on mandibular first molars. After insertion of the elastic separators, LLI was applied to the mesial and distal apical region (wavelength 808nm, energy 2J, time 20s and fluency of 8.32J/cm2) and at three points on the root region (wavelength 808nm, energy 1J, time 10s and fluency of 4.16J/cm2) of the first molar (irradiated side) and compared to the contralateral first molar (non-irradiated side), in three time intervals: 0hs, 24hs and 48hs. Pain perception was evaluated by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), at 0hs, 24hs and 48hs after insertion, with significance of 5%. Result The pain level was observed to be significantly lower (p<0.05) on the irradiated side, irrespective of gender and time. Women presented a significantly higher pain level (p<0.05) than men, irrespective of time and side. There were no significant differences between the time intervals (p>0.05). Conclusion It was concluded that LLI reduced the perception of initial pain in patients in whom compression of the periodontal ligament was promoted by elastic separation, and that women had a greater perception of pain sensitivity in the time intervals studied.

Comparing the effectiveness profile of pharmacological interventions used for orthodontic pain relief: an arm-based multilevel network meta-analysis of longitudinal data

Background and objectives

We compare the effectiveness profile of various analgesics used for orthodontic pain relief over a 1-week time period by conducting a longitudinal network meta-analysis (NMA).

Search methods

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched till 31st December 2015 to identify the relevant studies. Additional studies were identified by hand searching journals and reference lists. Unpublished literature was also searched.

Selection criteria

Eligible studies were randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for pain relief after placement of separator or initial aligning arch wire.

Data collection and analysis

Pain intensity data at 2, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, 96, and 168 hours was collected. In addition, data were also extracted for potential covariates (age, sex, and procedure). A covariate-adjusted arm-based multilevel random coefficient model was used for evidence synthesis.

Results

Fifteen RCTs (1341 participants; male/females 595, 44.6%/746 55.4%; mean age 17.3 years, SD 4.1) were included. A total of 11 nodes (Acetaminophen, Aspirin, Etoricoxib, Flurbiprofen, Ibuprofen, Lumiracoxib, Meloxicam, Naproxen, Piroxicam, Placebo, and Control) were identified out of which five nodes (Placebo, Ibuprofen, Naproxen, Acetaminophen, and Aspirin) had subnodes (based on timing of administration). Compared to Control, Placebo, Flurbiprofen, Lumiracoxib, and Meloxicam were not significantly effective. Etoricoxib (most effective) and Piroxicam (second most effective) were effective over a long period which lasted up to 96 and 72 hours, respectively. Ibuprofen, Acetaminophen, Naproxen, and Aspirin were effective at 6, 12, and 24 hours. The effectiveness of these analgesics was significantly influenced by the timing of administration. Assessment of heterogeneity, transitivity, inconsistency, and publication bias revealed no major threat to the NMA derived estimates.

Conclusion

Compared to the Control, Placebo was least effective whereas Etoricoxib was the most effective analgesic in reducing orthodontic pain. Administration timing has significant influence on the effectiveness profile of analgesics routinely used for managing orthodontic pain.

Optimal management of orthodontic pain

Pain is an undesirable side effect of orthodontic tooth movement, which causes many patients to give up orthodontic treatment or avoid it altogether. The aim of this study was to investigate, through an analysis of the scientific literature, the best method for managing orthodontic pain. The methodological aspects involved careful definition of keywords and diligent search in databases of scientific articles published in the English language, without any restriction of publication date. We recovered 1281 articles. After the filtering and classification of these articles, 56 randomized clinical trials were selected. Of these, 19 evaluated the effects of different types of drugs for the control of orthodontic pain, 16 evaluated the effects of low-level laser therapy on orthodontic pain, and 21 evaluated other methods of pain control. Drugs reported as effective in orthodontic pain control included ibuprofen, paracetamol, naproxen sodium, aspirin, etoricoxib, meloxicam, piroxicam, and tenoxicam. Most studies report favorable outcomes in terms of alleviation of orthodontic pain with the use of low-level laser therapy. Nevertheless, we noticed that there is no consensus, both for the drug and for laser therapy, on the doses and clinical protocols most appropriate for orthodontic pain management. Alternative methods for orthodontic pain control can also broaden the clinician's range of options in the search for better patient care.

Pharmacological interventions for pain relief during orthodontic treatment

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common side effect of orthodontic treatment. It increases in proportion to the amount of force applied to the teeth, and the type of orthodontic appliance used can affect the intensity of the pain. Pain during orthodontic treatment has been shown to be the most common reason for people wanting to discontinue treatment, and has been ranked as the worst aspect of treatment. Although pharmacological methods of pain relief have been investigated, there remains some uncertainty among orthodontists about which painkillers are most suitable and whether pre-emptive analgesia is beneficial. We conducted this Cochrane Review to assess and summarize the international evidence relating to the effectiveness of analgesics for preventing this unwanted side effect associated with orthodontic treatment.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review are to determine:- the effectiveness of drug interventions for pain relief during orthodontic treatment; and- whether there is a difference in the analgesic effect provided by different types, forms and doses of analgesia taken during orthodontic treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 19 June 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL;the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 June 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 June 2017) and CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 19 June 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched on the 19 June 2017 for ongoing studies. We placed no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relating to pain control during orthodontic treatment. Pain could be measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS), numerical rating scale (NRS) or categorical scale.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results, agreed the studies to be included and extracted information from the included studies regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcomes, harms and results. We planned to resolve any discrepancies or disagreements through discussion. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 32 relevant RCTs, which included 3110 participants aged 9 to 34 years, 2348 of whom we were able to include in our analyses. Seventeen of the studies had more than two arms. We were able to use data from 12 trials in meta-analyses that compared analgesics versus control (no treatment or a placebo); nine that compared non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) versus paracetamol; and two that compared pre-emptive versus post-treatment ibuprofen for pain control following orthodontic treatment. One study provided data for the comparison of NSAIDs versus local anaesthetic.We found moderate-quality evidence that analgesics effectively reduced pain following orthodontic treatment when compared to no treatment or a placebo at 2 hours (mean difference (MD) -11.66 mm on a 0 to 100 mm VAS, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.15 to -7.17; 10 studies, 685 participants), 6 hours (MD -24.27 mm on a VAS, 95% CI -31.44 to -17.11; 9 studies, 535 participants) and 24 hours (MD -21.19 mm on a VAS, 95% CI -28.31 to -14.06; 12 studies, 1012 participants).We did not find any evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAID and paracetamol at 2, 6 or 24 hours (at 24 hours: MD -0.51, 95% CI -8.93 to 7.92; 9 studies, 734 participants; low-quality evidence).Very low-quality evidence suggested pre-emptive ibuprofen gave better pain relief at 2 hours than ibuprofen taken post treatment (MD -11.30, 95% CI -16.27 to -6.33; one study, 41 participants), however, the difference was no longer significant at 6 or 24 hours.A single study of 48 participants compared topical NSAIDs versus local anaesthetic and showed no evidence of a difference in the effectiveness of the interventions (very low-quality evidence).Use of rescue analgesia was poorly reported. The very low-quality evidence did not show evidence of a difference between participants taking ibuprofen and participants taking paracetamol (relative risk (RR) 1.5, 95% CI 0.6 to 3.6). Nor did we find evidence of a difference between groups in likelihood of requiring rescue analgesia when ibuprofen was taken pre-emptively compared to after treatment (RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.9).Adverse effects were identified in one study, with one participant developing a rash that required treatment with antihistamines. This was provisionally diagnosed as a hypersensitivity to paracetamol.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Analgesics are more effective at reducing pain following orthodontic treatment than placebo or no treatment. Low-quality evidence did not show a difference in effectiveness between systemic NSAIDs compared with paracetamol, or topical NSAIDs compared with local anaesthetic. More high-quality research is needed to investigate these comparisons, and to evaluate pre-emptive versus post-treatment administration of analgesics.

Potential risks of orthodontic therapy: a critical review and conceptual framework

This review examines some of the potential risks of orthodontic therapy along with their evidence base. The risks of orthodontic treatment include periodontal damage, pain, root resorption, tooth devitalization, temporomandibular disorder, caries, speech problems and enamel damage. These risks can be understood to arise from a synergy between treatment and patient factors. In general terms, treatment factors that can influence risk include appliance type, force vectors and duration of treatment whilst relevant patient factors are both biological and behavioural. Hence, the natural variation between orthodontic treatment plans and patients gives rise to variations in risk. A good understanding of these risks is required for clinicians to obtain informed consent before starting treatment as well as to reduce the potential for harm during treatment. After considering each of these risks, a conceptual framework is presented to help clinicians better understand how orthodontic risks arise and may therefore be mitigated.

The Analgesic Efficacy of 5% Naproxen Gel for Pain Associated with Orthodontic Separator Placement: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial

Background and Objectives

Several methods have been proposed to relieve orthodontic pain, each with its advantages and disadvantages. This study aimed at assessing the efficacy of 5% naproxen gel to relieve pain associated with orthodontic separator placement.

Methods

This double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted on 41 patients between 14 and 20 years old complaining of pain due to placement of orthodontic elastic separators. Five-percent naproxen and placebo gels were applied randomly in a spilt mouth design to the permanent first molars area. The gels were applied every 8 hours for 3 days after placement of separators. Patients recorded their level of pain at determined time points using a 0 to 100 visual analog scale. Normal distribution was assessed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Paired samples t test was used to compare the mean pain score between the two gels. Multi-factorial repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared the severity of pain based on gender and age.

Results

Out of 41 patients, 34 completed this trial (23 females and 11 males). The mean pain score significantly decreased over time in both sides and for both genders (P < 0.001). Pain score was not significantly different between males and females or between patients < 16 and ≥ 16 years of age. The mean pain score was significantly lower in the naproxen group at all-time points (P < 0.001). Naproxen gel showed significantly higher analgesic efficacy when compared to the placebo at all-time points. The highest and lowest pain score was noted at 2 hours and at 7 days after separator placement, respectively.

Conclusions

Using 5% naproxen gel is an effective method for reducing orthodontic pain following elastic separator placement.

Preoperative analgesics for additional pain relief in children and adolescents having dental treatment

BACKGROUND

Fear of dental pain is a major barrier to treatment for children who need dental care. The use of preoperative analgesics has the potential to reduce postoperative discomfort and intraoperative pain. We reviewed the available evidence to determine whether further research is warranted and to inform the development of prescribing guidelines. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of preoperative analgesics for intraoperative or postoperative pain relief (or both) in children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment without general anaesthesia or sedation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 5 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 5 January 2016), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 5 January 2016), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 5 January 2016) and the ISI Web of Science (1945 to 5 January 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 5 January 2016. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We handsearched several specialist journals dating from 2000 to 2011.We checked the reference lists of all eligible trials for additional studies. We contacted specialists in the field for any unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials of analgesics given before dental treatment versus placebo or no analgesics in children and adolescents up to 17 years of age. We excluded children and adolescents having dental treatment under sedation (including nitrous oxide/oxygen) or general anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed titles and abstracts of the articles obtained from the searches for eligibility, undertook data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials in the review, with 190 participants in total. We did not identify any new studies for inclusion from the updated search in January 2016.Three trials were related to dental treatment, i.e. restorative and extraction treatments; two trials related to orthodontic treatment. We did not judge any of the included trials to be at low risk of bias.Three of the included trials compared paracetamol with placebo, only two of which provided data for analysis (presence or absence of parent-reported postoperative pain behaviour). Meta-analysis of the two trials gave arisk ratio (RR) for postoperative pain of 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.22; two trials, 100 participants; P = 0.31), which showed no evidence of a benefit in taking paracetamol preoperatively (52% reporting pain in the placebo group versus 42% in the paracetamol group). One of these trials was at unclear risk of bias, and the other was at high risk. The quality of the evidence is low. One study did not have any adverse events; the other two trials did not mention adverse events.Four of the included trials compared ibuprofen with placebo. Three of these trials provided useable data. One trial reported no statistical difference in postoperative pain experienced by the ibuprofen group and the control group for children undergoing dental treatment. We pooled the data from the other two trials, which included participants who were having orthodontic separator replacement without a general anaesthetic, to determine the effect of preoperative ibuprofen on the severity of postoperative pain. There was a statistically significant mean difference in severity of postoperative pain of -13.44 (95% CI -23.01 to -3.88; two trials, 85 participants; P = 0.006) on a visual analogue scale (0 to 100), which indicated a probable benefit for preoperative ibuprofen before this orthodontic procedure. However, both trials were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence is low. Only one of the trials reported adverse events (one participant from the ibuprofen group and one from the placebo group reporting a lip or cheek biting injury).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

From the available evidence, we cannot determine whether or not preoperative analgesics are of benefit in paediatric dentistry for procedures under local anaesthetic. There is probably a benefit in using preoperative analgesics prior to orthodontic separator placement. The quality of the evidence is low. Further randomised clinical trials should be completed with appropriate sample sizes and well defined outcome measures.

Current advances in orthodontic pain

Orthodontic pain is an inflammatory pain that is initiated by orthodontic force-induced vascular occlusion followed by a cascade of inflammatory responses, including vascular changes, the recruitment of inflammatory and immune cells, and the release of neurogenic and pro-inflammatory mediators. Ultimately, endogenous analgesic mechanisms check the inflammatory response and the sensation of pain subsides. The orthodontic pain signal, once received by periodontal sensory endings, reaches the sensory cortex for pain perception through three-order neurons: the trigeminal neuron at the trigeminal ganglia, the trigeminal nucleus caudalis at the medulla oblongata and the ventroposterior nucleus at the thalamus. Many brain areas participate in the emotion, cognition and memory of orthodontic pain, including the insular cortex, amygdala, hippocampus, locus coeruleus and hypothalamus. A built-in analgesic neural pathway—periaqueductal grey and dorsal raphe—has an important role in alleviating orthodontic pain. Currently, several treatment modalities have been applied for the relief of orthodontic pain, including pharmacological, mechanical and behavioural approaches and low-level laser therapy. The effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain relief has been validated, but its effects on tooth movement are controversial. However, more studies are needed to verify the effectiveness of other modalities. Furthermore, gene therapy is a novel, viable and promising modality for alleviating orthodontic pain in the future.

Intensity of pain due to separators in adolescent orthodontic patients

Objective:

To investigate the intensity of pain adolescent orthodontic patients experience following the insertion of separators.

Materials and Methods:

Elastomeric separators were placed mesially and distally to the first molars in 62 adolescents (20 male, 42 female, age 12–15 years), and the participants were given self-administrated questionnaires to document perceived pain, pain upon chewing, and the severity of pain's affecting daily life, using a visual analog scale for seven days.

Results:

The mean perceived pain scores out of 100 on the first 3 days were 54.6 ± 32.7, 51.7 ± 29.9, and 32.3 ± 28.4, respectively; chewing pain scores were: 61.9 ± 35.3, 52.6 ± 30.4, and 39.5 ± 32.1, respectively; the pain's affecting daily life scores were 24.9 ± 35.5, 21.1 ± 30.9, and 11.9 ± 23.7, respectively. A Kruskal–Wallis test showed a statistically significant difference in the reported pain between the three studied parameters. A Mann–Whitney U-test showed an insignificant difference between male and female adolescents.

Conclusion:

Pain perception varies among adolescent patients, but it decreases significantly after the first 2 days, with no gender differences.

Comparison of the effects of preemptive acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and meloxicam on pain after separator placement: a randomized clinical trial

Background

This study aims to evaluate and compare the effect of pre-procedural administration of acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and meloxicam in reducing pain after separator placement.

Methods

Three hundred twenty-one patients who needed orthodontic treatment and aged above 15 were randomly assigned to one of the three study groups: group A: 650 mg acetaminophen, group B: 400 mg ibuprofen, and group C: 7.5 mg meloxicam. All subjects received a single dose of medication 1 h prior to separator placement. Using visual analog scale, patients recorded their pain perception during rest, fitting posterior teeth together, and chewing at time intervals of immediately, 2, 6, 24, and 48 h after separator placement.

Results

There was no significant difference between acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and meloxicam in post-separator placement pain control when administered 1 h before the procedure. In all the groups, at rest, pain level elevated after separator placement and reached its peak at 24 h and then subsided until 48 h. But during chewing and fitting of the posterior teeth, some of the groups reached a peak in pain at 48 h. No significant difference was found in pain experience between males and females.

Conclusions

Meloxicam can be used as an effective analgesic in orthodontic pain control considering it has less gastric side effects compared to the conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Trial registration

Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials, IRCT2015041821828N1

The analgesic effect of benzocaine mucoadhesive patches on orthodontic pain caused by elastomeric separators, a preliminary study

OBJECTIVES

To study the effect of benzocaine mucoadhesive patches (20%) on orthodontic pain caused by elastomeric separators.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A split-mouth design was used in 30 patients (12 female, 18 male, aged 23 ± 3.75 years). They were instructed to apply benzocaine and placebo patches randomly for right or left first permanent molars of maxillary/mandibular arches for 20 min and repeat this procedure every 6 h with a similar type patch. A 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used for pain perception assessment in patients who were given benzocaine (benzocaine group) or placebo (placebo group) patches. Pain perception (VAS) was recorded immediately after separator placement and after 2, 6, 12, 18, 24, 48 and 72 h.

RESULTS

The mean VAS (SD) for the placebo and benzocaine groups were 2.28 (1.08) and 1.63 (0.67), respectively. The pain peaked at 24 h. Significant pain perception differences were observed between groups at 2, 18, 24, 48 and 72 h. Pain perception was not different between genders or jaws investigated (p > 0.05). The Friedman test revealed significant differences in pain perception among various time intervals for benzocaine (χ (2) = 99.84, p = 0.000) and placebo (χ (2) = 102.361, p = 0.000) groups. Significant negative correlations (ρ) were found only between pain perception scores and patient's ages in the placebo group at 18 (-0.438), 24 (-0.526), 48 (-0.565) and 72 h (-0.458).

CONCLUSION

The recorded mean VAS values were relatively low; however, the benzocaine 20% patches significantly reduced the post-separation orthodontic pain.

Effects of various analgesics on the level of prostaglandin E2 during orthodontic tooth movement

AIM

The aim of this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study was to evaluate the analgesic effects of preoperative/postoperative ibuprofen and acetaminophen use after bonding and to find a relation between the pain level and the amount of prostaglandin released.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-eight patients were included and randomly divided to three equal groups that received either ibuprofen, acetaminophen or placebo for pain relief. The pain levels were measured before bonding, after bonding, at first, second, third, and seventh days on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) samples were collected at the same time intervals to measure the amount of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) released. PGE2 levels were determined with ELISA test. The results were evaluated with Wilcoxon and Kruskal–Wallis tests with Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

Acetaminophen and placebo groups showed similar pain levels during the first 2 days, whereas ibuprofen group showed lower pain levels during the first day after bonding. PGE2 levels did not show statistically significant difference in time within the analgesic groups. No significant relation between the pain perceived and PGE2 released was found.

LIMITATIONS

The biggest limitation of this study is the subjective nature of pain and its method of evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

The perception of pain by patients taking ibuprofen and acetaminophen at pre/post appliance placement was not different from patients taking placebo. No time-related differences in PGE2 level were found between the groups and no significant correlation was found between the perception of pain and PGE2 levels.

The effect of diode superpulsed low-level laser therapy on experimental orthodontic pain caused by elastomeric separators: a randomized controlled clinical trial

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of diode superpulsed low-level laser therapy (SLLLT) in reducing experimentally induced orthodontic pain. Overall, 120 subjects (23.01 ± 1.39 years) were enrolled for a clinical trial. Subjects were randomly assigned to upper (U, N = 60) or lower (L, N = 60) jaw groups. All subjects received 4 elastomeric separators mesial and distal to the upper (U group) or lower (L group) right first molar and bicuspids. Each subject of the U and L groups was randomly assigned to laser (Ul, N = 20 and Ll, N = 20), placebo (Up, N = 20 and Lp, N = 20) or control (Uc, N = 20 and Lc, N = 20) sub-groups. Subjects in laser groups received a single GaAs diode SLLLT application (910 nm, 160 mW, beam diameter of 8 mm, applied for 340 s) immediately after placing orthodontic separators. Placebo groups received a simulated SLLLT and controls did not receive any therapy. All participants compiled a survey on pain duration and a 100-mm visual analogue scale immediately after the separators placement and after 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, and 96 h. Pain intensity of laser groups was significantly lower compared to placebo and control groups (p = 0.0001). In the laser group, 70% of subjects felt pain, while in the placebo and control groups all subjects felt pain (p = 0.0001). The end of pain occurred earlier in laser compared to placebo and control groups (p = 0.021). A single-diode SLLLT application appeared to be effective in reducing the intensity and duration of experimentally induced orthodontic pain and could be used in daily orthodontic practice.

Preoperative analgesics for additional pain relief in children and adolescents having dental treatment

BACKGROUND

Fear of dental pain is a major barrier to children needing dental care. The use of preoperative analgesics has the potential to reduce postoperative discomfort. In addition it might also reduce intraoperative pain. Reviewing the available evidence will determine whether further research is warranted and will inform the development of prescribing guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of preoperative analgesics for pain relief in children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 8 March 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 8 March 2012), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 8 March 2012), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 8 March 2012) and the ISI Web of Knowledge (1945 to 8 March 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.The reference lists of all eligible trials were checked for additional studies. Specialists in the field were contacted for any unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials of analgesics given before dental treatment versus placebo or no analgesics in children and adolescents aged up to 17 years. We excluded children and adolescents having dental treatment under sedation (including nitrous oxide/oxygen) or general anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed titles and abstracts for eligibility and undertook data extraction and assessment of risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials met the review's inclusion criteria with 190 participants in total. Three trials were dentally related i.e. restorative and extraction treatments; two trials related to orthodontic treatment. None of the included trials were judged to be at low risk of bias. Three trials compared paracetamol with placebo, only two of which provided data for analysis (presence or absence of parent-reported postoperative pain behaviour). The meta-analysis of the two trials showed a nonsignificant risk ratio (RR) for postoperative pain-related behaviours of 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.22; P = 0.31), which showed no evidence of a benefit in taking paracetamol preoperatively (52% reporting pain in placebo versus 42% in test group). One of these trials was at unclear risk of bias, the other at high risk. Four trials compared ibuprofen with placebo. Three of these trials provided useable data. One trial reported no statistical difference in postoperative pain experienced by the ibuprofen group and the control group for children undergoing dental treatment. Data from two trials, including patients who were having orthodontic separator replacement without a general anaesthetic, were pooled to determine the effect of preoperative ibuprofen on the severity of postoperative pain. There was a statistically significant benefit, with regard to severity of postoperative pain, for giving ibuprofen preoperatively with mean difference -19.12 (95% CI -29.36 to -8.87; P = 0.0003; moderate quality evidence) on a visual analogue scale (0 to 100) indicating a probable benefit for preoperative ibuprofen before this orthodontic procedure. However, both these trials were at high risk of bias. Adverse events were only reported in one trial (one patient from the ibuprofen group and one from the placebo group reporting a lip or cheek biting injury).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

From the available evidence we cannot determine whether or not preoperative analgesics are of benefit in paediatric dentistry for procedures under local anaesthetic. There is probably a benefit in prescribing preoperative analgesics prior to orthodontic separator placement.