Interventions for pain during fixed orthodontic appliance therapy. A systematic review

Analgesic Efficacy of Bromelain and Bromelain Plus Turmeric for Pain Control After Orthodontic Separator Placement: A Triple-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of Bromelain, Ibuprofen, and Bromelain plus turmeric for pain control after orthodontic separator placement.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This triple-blind randomized clinical trial included 135 patients over the age of 15 who required orthodontic treatment. The patients were randomly assigned to three groups: 400 mg Ibuprofen (Group A), 200 mg Bromelain (ANAHEAL; Group B), and 150 mg Bromelain + 300 mg Turmeric (ANAHEAL PLUS; Group C). The patients took one tablet immediately after the separator was placed. Four separators were placed at the mesial and distal regions of both maxillary first molars. The degree of pain and discomfort was measured using a visual analog scale (VAS) at the following time points: Immediately after the separator placement (T0), 2 h posttreatment (T1), 6 h posttreatment (T2), 24 h posttreatment (T3), and 48 h after separator placement (T4). The data were analyzed using SPSS (version 15.0). Different statistical tests including ANOVA, Tukey's test, and paired t-test were utilized. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Pain scores at 2 h (T1) and 6 h (T2) after separator placement differed significantly among the three groups (p = 0.006 and p = 0.025, respectively), with the Ibuprofen group experiencing significantly higher pain levels than the Bromelain and Bromelain Plus Turmeric groups. At 48 h (T4), a significant difference was observed only in chewing function (p = 0.024), where patients in the Bromelain group reported higher pain scores than those in the Ibuprofen group. Sex had no significant effect on pain perception (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Bromelain with or without turmeric might be a useful alternative to Ibuprofen for pain control following orthodontic separator placement.

Effects of wearing fixed orthodontic appliance on dynamic balance, reaction time, and pain perception in adolescents and young adult elite athletes

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of using fixed orthodontic appliance on dynamic balance, auditory/visual reaction times, as well as pain perception in adolescent and young adult elite athletes.

METHODS

A total of 34 elite athletes (n = 19 males) aged 16-21 years from different sports (track and field sprint, long jump and discus throw) were randomly allocated to treatment (n = 17) or control (n = 17) groups. The treatment group received self-ligating brackets with 0.04 cm super-elastic nickel-titanium arch wire, placed in the brackets to correct the teeth position. Perceived pain (i.e., visual analogue scale), dynamic balance (i.e., Y balance test), and auditory reaction time and visual reaction time using Direct RT software were assessed before (day-1), and on five occasions after fixed orthodontic appliance placement (day+1, +3, +7, +14, and +30). The two groups' quantitative data [expressed as mean (standard deviation)] for each occasion were compared using the Student's t-test. Comparisons of the Y-balance test, auditory reaction time, visual reaction time, and pain visual analogue scale data were each made between the 6 occasions via a factorial A × B analysis of variance in order to check for the possible interaction between the two groups and the (6) consecutive days (occasions).

RESULTS

Compared to the control group, the treatment group showed significantly (i) lower values of anterior reach for both the dominant ([78(4) vs. 75(3)%, respectively]) and the non-dominant [76(3) vs. 74(4)%, respectively] legs at day+3, and (ii) higher values of pain visual analogue scale at day+1, day+3, and day+7 [0.00(0.00) vs. 4.94(1.25); 0.00(0.00) vs. 4.12(1.17), and 0.00(0.00) vs. 0.41(0.51), respectively). Factorial analysis of variance revealed that only pain visual analogue scale values were different between the two groups at day+1 and day+3.

CONCLUSION

FOA induced a high pain level during the first week following its placement in elite athletes.

Effect of aligners on patients' oral health-related quality of life and anxiety: a prospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

This prospective study explored the impact of aligners on the oral health-related quality of life and anxiety of patients during the first month of orthodontic treatment and the first month of the retention phase.

METHODS

A total of 23 male and female patients (median age 25 y) treated with clear aligners were included. The OHRQoL questionnaire was used at certain time points during treatment (T1: placement of the first aligner; T2: after one day of use; T3: after seven days; T4: after one month; and T5: after one month in the retention phase). The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) was also self-administered to assess state and trait anxiety (Y1 and Y2 subscales, respectively) at the T1, T4 and T5 time points. A population average generalized estimating equations logistic regression model was fit to assess the effect of time on the responses, and the Wald test was used to examine the overall effect of time.

RESULTS

Overall time was a significant predictor for most of the questions. However, time was marginally significant for the OHRQoL questions evaluating oral symptoms such as bad taste/smell, sores, and food accumulation. Tooth discolouration did not differ between time points. The general activity disturbance was significantly lower in the retention phase. Higher depression and anxiety scores were reported at the initial appointment and decreased thereafter.

CONCLUSIONS

CAT has a negative impact on quality of life and psychological status during the initial days of treatment. These impairments ameliorate at later treatment stages.

Effect of low-level laser therapy on pain reduction in orthodontic patients during molar distalization: A randomized controlled trial

Aim

To investigate the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on pain reduction in orthodontic patients during molar distalization.

Materials and methods

Twenty patients requiring bilateral maxillary first molar distalization were randomly assigned to two groups: the intervention group (mean age 15.61 ± 1.03 years) received multiple LLLT after every activation of the distalizing appliance (immediately and on the 3rd, 7th, and 14th days) and the control group (mean age 15.64 ± 1.08 years) who did not receive LLLT. Patients reported pain levels every day for 7 days following activation of the appliance using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS), then the pain experience of both the intervention and control groups was compared using Mann-Whitney U test.

Results

The mean pain scores on the 1st day were higher in the intervention group (9.27 ± 1.01) compared to that of the control group (8.80 ± 1.03). However, the mean pain scores of the intervention group (6.55 ± 1.29, 4.00 ± 1.26, 2.55 ± 1.29, 0.91 ± 1.04, 0.00 ± 0.00 and 0.00 ± 0.00, respectively) were lower than the control group (7.40 ± 1.90, 5.60 ± 2.07, 4.20 ± 1.99, 2.80 ± 1.93, 1.60 ± 1.58 and 0.40 ± 0.84, respectively) from the 2nd to the 7th day. All the differences were not statistically significant except on the 6th day (P-value = 0.003). The peak pain level was experienced by both groups on the 1st day, followed by a statistically significant gradual decrease in pain levels. Patients in the intervention group reported a shorter overall duration of pain.

Conclusion

Although LLLT, with the used parameters, reduced the overall duration of pain experience following maxillary first molar distalization, it was not effective during peak pain levels.

Nanotechnology in Orthodontics: Unveiling Pain Mechanisms, Innovations, and Future Prospects of Nanomaterials in Drug Delivery

Orthodontic pain is characterized by sensations of tingling, tooth discomfort, and intolerance. According to the oral health report, over forty percent of children and adolescents have undergone orthodontic treatment. The efficacy of orthodontic treatment involving braces can be compromised by the diverse levels of discomfort and suffering experienced by patients, leading to suboptimal treatment outcomes and reduced patient adherence. Nanotechnology has entered all areas of science and technology. This review provides an overview of nanoscience, its application in orthodontics, the underlying processes of orthodontic pain, effective treatment options, and a summary of recent research in Nano-dentistry. The uses of this technology in healthcare span a wide range, including enhanced diagnostics, biosensors, and targeted drug delivery. The reason for this is that nanomaterials possess distinct qualities that depend on their size, which can greatly enhance human well-being and contribute to better health when effectively utilized. The field of dentistry has also experienced significant advancements, particularly in the past decade, especially in the utilization of nanomaterials and technology. Over time, there has been an increase in the availability of dental nanomaterials, and a diverse array of these materials have been extensively studied for both commercial and therapeutic purposes.

High-frequency near-infrared semiconductor laser irradiation suppressed experimental tooth movement-induced inflammatory pain markers in the periodontal ligament tissues of rats

High-frequency near-infrared (NIR) semiconductor laser-irradiation has an unclear effect on nociception in the compressed lateral periodontal ligament region, a peripheral nerve region. This study aimed to investigate the effects of NIR semiconductor laser irradiation, with a power of 120 J, on inflammatory pain markers and neuropeptides induced in the compressed lateral periodontal ligament area during ETM. A NIR semiconductor laser [910 nm wavelength, 45 W maximum output power, 300 mW average output power, 30 kHz frequency, and 200 ns pulse width (Lumix 2; Fisioline, Verduno, Italy)] was used. A nickel-titanium closed coil that generated a 50-g force was applied to the maxillary left-side first molars and incisors in 7-week-old Sprague-Dawley (280-300 g) rats to induce experimental tooth movement (ETM) for 24 h. Ten rats were divided into two groups (ETM + laser, n = 5; ETM, n = 5). The right side of the ETM group (i.e., the side without induced ETM) was evaluated as the untreated group. We performed immunofluorescent histochemistry analysis to quantify the interleukin (IL)-1β, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX2), prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), and neuropeptide [calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)] expression in the compressed region of the periodontal tissue. Post-hoc Tukey-Kramer tests were used to compare the groups. Compared with the ETM group, the ETM + laser group showed significant suppression in IL-1β (176.2 ± 12.3 vs. 310.8 ± 29.5; P < 0.01), PGE2 (104.4 ± 14.34 vs. 329.6 ± 36.52; P < 0.01), and CGRP (36.8 ± 4.88 vs. 78.0 ± 7.13; P < 0.01) expression. High-frequency NIR semiconductor laser irradiation exerts significant effects on ETM-induced inflammation. High-frequency NIR semiconductor laser irradiation can reduce periodontal inflammation during orthodontic tooth movement.

Efficacy of lower arch leveling, lower incisors' root resorption, and pain associated with the correction of curve of Spee using different orthodontic archwires: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare between 3 archwires (AWs) for leveling curve of Spee (COS) in terms of efficacy of reduction, external apical root resorption (EARR), pain experienced, and the lower arch dimensional changes during COS leveling.

TRIAL DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Jordan University of Science and Technology Postgraduate dental clinics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-three subjects with COS > 5 mm were included in this study. The subjects were randomly divided into three groups based on the AW used: group 1, 0.017 × 0.025-inch stainless-steel (SS) AW; group 2, 0.019 × 0.025-inch SS AW; and group 3, 0.021 × 0.025-inch β-titanium (TMA) AW. The intervention was randomly allocated using the permuted random block size of 3 with a 1:1:1 allocation ratio. In the three groups, a 5-mm depth reverse COS was placed in the AWs. The following time points were defined for COS assessment: T1, before interventional leveling AW placement; and T2-T7, 1-6 months after interventional leveling AW placement. Records consisted of dental study models and periapical (PA) radiographs. Pain scores were recorded using visual analogue scale. Patients were followed up on a monthly basis until COS < 1.5 mm.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

COS depth reduction, lower incisors' EARR, pain scores, and arch dimensional changes.

RESULTS

An overall reduction of 3.82 mm, 4.47 mm, and 3.85 mm of the depth of COS was achieved in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The mean differences of 0.65 mm between groups 1 and 2 and 0.62 mm between groups 2 and 3 were significant at P < 0.05. Lower incisors' EARR during leveling COS ranged from 0.68 to 0.72 mm, from 0.63 to 0.82 mm, and from 0.53 to 0.88 mm in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P > 0.05). Higher pain scores were reported by group 2 subjects during the first 24 h. Arch length and width increased significantly in groups 2 and 3 (P < 0.05). In all groups, COS leveling was achieved by lower incisor intrusion and proclination and lower molar extrusion.

CONCLUSIONS

All investigated AWs were effective in leveling COS with minimal lower incisors' EARR (< 1 mm). COS was leveled by lower incisors' intrusion and proclination and lower molar extrusion. Pain scores were the highest in group 2 during the first 24 h.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The 3 investigated leveling AWs were effective for the leveling COS and at the same time safe on the roots of the lower anterior teeth.

Efficacy of Low-Level Laser Therapy in Reducing Pain in the Initial Stages of Orthodontic Treatment

Purpose

There is no consensus about the mechanism and efficacy in alleviating pain of the lower-level laser therapy (LLLT) during orthodontic treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the LLLT effectiveness clinically in reducing pain caused by orthodontic movement that occurs in the early stages of treatment.

Methods

The sample consisted of 54 patients in need of orthodontic treatment divided into two groups. A 28 experimental patients group (initial mean age: 26.84 years old) was undergone gallium-aluminum-arsenide infrared laser application on 12 points for each tooth immediately after the installation of the first alignment archwire, and a 26 patients control group (initial mean age: 29.13 years old) was undergone to no pain control intervention at all. Pain intensity was measured by using a visual analog scale, which was marked pain level (mm) reported in 06, 24, 48, and 72 hours. The perception of pain (beginning, peak, decline, and absence) was evaluated by filling up a questionnaire. To compare the intensity and perception of pain between groups, a nonparametric Mann-Whitney has been performed.

Results

The experimental group showed levels (mm) at 6 (p < 0.001), 24 (p=0.004), and 48 hours (p=0.007) and perception of pain (hours) in the peak (p=0.026), decline (p=0.025), and absence (p=0.008) significantly lower compared to the group control.

Conclusion

Low-level laser therapy is effective in reducing pain severity caused by orthodontic forces activation, and it promotes the analgesic action lasting effect during the most painful feeling time.

The Effects of Periodontal Laser Therapy on Pain in Adult Patients with Orthodontic Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

(1) Background: Pain is the most common complaint of patients with fixed orthodontic treatment, especially when applying and activating the orthodontic device. The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in reducing pain caused by the orthodontic treatment has been frequently studied over the last few years. In this study, we aim to evaluate the influence of laser therapy on pain caused by orthodontic forces acting on periodontal tissues during fixed orthodontic treatment. (2) Methods: A total of 36 patients who met the inclusion criteria were submitted to laser therapy after beginning a fixed orthodontic treatment. For each patient, one half-arch was treated with laser (HL), the opposite one being the control half-arch (HC). The evaluation of pain was conducted by asking the patients to rate their pain on a VAS scale from 0 to 10. (3) Results: Analyzing the VAS score values reported after applying the orthodontic device, we noticed that the pain increased in the first few hours, it was the highest 24 h after application, and it decreased towards the 7th day. The pain reported by most patients was significantly reduced in the HL compared to the HC, in all three moments that were evaluated (p < 0.0001). (4) Conclusions: Repeated LLLT in patients with orthodontic treatment leads to a significant decrease in pain levels, as the comparison between the laser half-arch and the control half-arch showed.

Predictors of Analgesic Consumption in Orthodontic Patients

During orthodontic treatment, pain is a subjective experience influenced by several factors. Orthodontic patients consume analgesics at different rates to alleviate this pain. Correlations between orthodontic pain and analgesic consumption were analyzed. Predictive factors to analgesics consumption were not statistically analyzed. This study was conducted to identify the predictive factors for analgesic consumption after initiation of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Two hundred and eighty-six patients involved in this study kept a seven-day diary in which they recorded pain intensity (using a 0–10 numerical rating scale), analgesic consumption, localization of pain, pain triggers, and pain characteristics. Univariable analyses identified potential predictive factors: age, gender, pain intensity, pain localization, pain while chewing, pain at rest, night pain, headache, pulsating pain, sharp pain, dull pain, and tingling. Logistic regression was conducted to create a model that could predict analgesic consumption. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that analgesic consumption was increased by increased age, increased intensity of pain, and presence of a headache. Overall, the model explained 33% of analgesic requirement variability. Age, intensity of pain, and headache proved to be predictors of analgesic consumption. Knowledge of such factors may help clinicians identify orthodontic patients who will consume analgesics on their own.

A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of different methods on pain management during orthodontic debonding

BACKGROUND

Orthodontic treatment procedures like separator placement, archwire placement, orthodontic force application, miniscrew placement and debonding procedure usually involve pain and discomfort. Pain perception and methods to reduce pain during debonding in regard to gender and different locations of oral cavity is still a poorly documented issue in orthodontics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different methods on pain management during debonding and its association with gender and location.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and forty orthodontic patients in the stage of debonding were randomly assigned into four groups according to different methods used during debonding; Group A: Medication group (Paracetamol given 1 h before debonding), Group B: Finger pressure group, Group C: Stress relief group and Group D: Control group. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess the pain intensity just after debonding for each sextant.

RESULTS

Among 140 participants, 61 (43.57%) were males and 79 (56.43%) were females. Differences in VAS score in different areas of oral cavity among all groups were found to be significant (p < 0.05). Total VAS score was greater in control group (16.67) followed by stress relief group (13.33) and finger pressure group (10) and least in medication group (8.33). The VAS score was higher in the upper front and lower front sextants in all the groups. Females reported higher VAS score and in upper front sextant, it showed significant difference (p = 0.018). On comparison, total VAS scores were statistically significant difference in medication-stress relief arm pair (p = 0.009), medication-control arm pair (p < 0.001) and finger pressure-control arm pair (0.002). The total VAS score comparison between medication-finger pressure arm was not significant (p = 0.172).

CONCLUSIONS

Pain perceived during debonding varies in different areas of oral cavity among all the groups. Anterior area of oral cavity and female seems to be more sensitive to pain. Use of finger pressure can be used effectively for pain management during debonding.

Pain Perception Associated with Mini-Implants and Interventions for Pain Management: A Cross-Sectional Questionnaire-Based Survey

Background

Orthodontists use mini-implants temporarily as an effective mode of skeletal anchorage devices. The placement of mini-implants can cause pain and discomfort to the patients. Patients often develop swelling, and the pain could interfere with their daily activities. Practitioners tend to prescribe antibiotics and pain medication for management.

Objectives

The main objectives of this study are to evaluate the pain perception and discomfort due to mini-implant placement experienced by the patient and evaluate the interventions for pain management commonly practiced among orthodontists.

Materials and Methods

The study was designed as a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study. A total of 271 patients were assessed, for whom 625 mini-implants (ranging from 1.2 to 2 mm diameter and length 8-14 mm) were placed. Pain scores were assessed using the VAS and the "Faces" pain rating scale to collect data about discomfort in daily activity and function. Data was collected from 244 patients. A total of 155 orthodontists were questioned regarding the prescription of medications and the interventions for managing pain and adverse effects.

Results

Average pain score among female subjects was 16.71 and among men was 13.5. The highest pain scores were recorded for palatal mini-implants with an average score of 36.29 and the least for interradicular mini-implants with an average score of 9.02. Among the subjects, 47.9% of them took analgesics, and the most commonly prescribed analgesics were paracetamol (39%). Swelling at the site is where the mini-implants were placed, and ulceration due to implants were commonly dealt with the excision of the surrounding soft tissue, composite placement, and palliative care with oral analgesic gels.

Conclusion

Female subjects had more mini-implants placed, and female subjects had also given more pain scores than their male counterparts. Palatal mini-implants caused the highest pain, followed by mini-implants placed at the infrazygomatic crest and the buccal shelf region. Palatal mini-implants caused maximum discomfort during speech and eating, followed by the mini-implant in the buccal shelf and the infrazygomatic crest region that also caused difficulty in yawning and laughing. Infiltration anesthesia was commonly given for the placement of interradicular implants and extra-alveolar mini-implants. Paracetamol was the most prescribed by the orthodontists, and more than half the doctors did not regularly prescribe antibiotics.

Effects of Danggui-Shaoyao-San on depression- and anxiety-like behaviors of rats induced by experimental tooth movement

PURPOSE

To investigate the effects of Danggui-Shaoyao-San (DSS) on depression- and anxiety-like behavior induced by experimental tooth movement (ETM) in rats.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six rats were randomly divided into a sham group (n = 12; rats underwent all operation procedures, except placement of orthodontic forces, and received saline treatment), ETM group (n = 12; rats received saline treatment and ETM), and DETM group (n = 12; rats received DSS [dose: 150 mg/kg twice daily from preoperative day 5 to postoperative day 7] treatment and ETM). The vacuous chewing movement (VCM) test, open-field test, and elevated plus maze test were performed to assess the depression- and anxiety-like behaviors of the rats.

RESULTS

DSS pretreatment significantly decreased the ETM-induced VCM time (P < 0.05, DETM vs. ETM), increased the ETM-induced time to the central area of experimental device during the 5 min open-field test (P < 0.05, DETM vs. ETM), and increased the ratio of time spent in the open arms of the 5 min elevated plus maze test induced by ETM (P < 0.01, DETM vs. ETM).

CONCLUSIONS

DSS pretreatment can restore the impaired abilities of rats caused by ETM-induced depression- and anxiety-like behavior.

Perceived pain during rapid maxillary expansion in children with different expanders

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the intensity of pain caused by rapid maxillary expansion (RME) with two expanders: Hyrax and Haas type, in growing patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-nine patients (23 girls and 16 boys) with an average age of 9.3 years (SD = 1.39 years) were randomized into two groups and treated with Hyrax- and Haas-type expanders. In both groups, initial activation of the expander screw was one full turn on the first day followed by 2/4 of a turn two times a day (morning and night) for 7 days. Inclusion criteria were patients presenting with a posterior crossbite or maxillary atresia between 7 and 12 years old. To evaluate the intensity of pain during the active phase of the treatment, a combination of the Numerical Rating Scale and Wong-Baker Faces Pain Scale was used. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the two treatment groups.

RESULTS

There was significant inverse correlation between days following insertion and pain. During the expansion period, 100% of the children reported some pain. Hyrax expander subjects reported greater pain than those treated with the Haas-type expander only on the first day. The level of pain remained greater in girls throughout treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain was reported regardless of the type of expander and was higher in the Hyrax group only on the first day of activation.

Effect of verbal and written information on pain perception in patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pain can discourage patients from seeking orthodontic treatment or compromise their compliance during therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of verbal and written information on orthodontic pain after fixed appliance placement.

TRIAL DESIGN

Two-arm parallel design randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Healthy adolescents with permanent dentition enrolled for orthodontic treatment were assigned to the study or control group using computer-generated random lists and allocation concealment with sealed envelopes. Participants completed baseline questionnaires to assess anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Trait Version, Form X-2) and somatosensory amplification (Somatosensory Amplification Scale). Brackets were placed in the maxillary arch, from first molar to first molar, and an Australian archwire 0.012 inch was used for alignment. General verbal information on orthodontic treatment was given to all patients by the same clinician. Participants included in the study group received also detailed verbal instructions on orthodontic pain together with a take-home information leaflet by another clinician. Outcome included assessments of pain intensity with a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) on the day of appliance placement (Day 1, bedtime) and twice a day for the following 6 days (Day 2 to Day 7, morning, bedtime), and analgesic consumption. Participants, statistician, and clinicians who gave general verbal information on orthodontic treatment and instructions about how to score pain intensity were blinded to group assignment.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were assigned to the study (n = 30, mean age: 15.4 ± 1.3 years) or control group (n = 30, mean age: 14.7 ± 3.2 years). At baseline, no significant between-group differences were present in terms of anxiety and somatosensory amplification. Orthodontic pain scores were significantly lower in the study group compared with the control one, at bedtime on Day 1 (P < 0.05) and in the morning of Day 2 (P < 0.01). No significant between-group differences were found in following measurements. Overall, analgesic consumption was significantly lower in study compared with the control (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

A combination of verbal and written information on orthodontic pain after placement of fixed appliances reduced patient's self-reported pain in the early stages.

REGISTRATION

This study was not registered.

The effectiveness of supplemental vibrational force on enhancing orthodontic treatment. A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The results from the literature regarding the influence of supplemental vibrational forces (SVFs) on orthodontic treatment are controversial. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to evaluate whether SVFs have positive effects, such as in accelerating tooth movement, alleviating pain, and preventing root resorption, in orthodontic patients.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches through five electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central) were complemented by hand searches up to January, 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials reporting on the effects of SVFs in orthodontic patients in English were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection, data extraction, and a risk of bias assessment were independently performed by two reviewers. Study characteristics and outcomes were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A qualitative analysis of the effects of SVFs on orthodontic tooth movement, pain experience, and root resorption was conducted.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies, including nine clinical trials, were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. There was no significant evidence to support the positive effects of SVFs in orthodontic patients, neither in accelerating tooth movement nor in alleviating pain experience. According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, the quality of the evidence was very low for all the outcomes in the qualitative analysis.

LIMITATIONS

The results of this systematic review are based on a limited number of studies and the methodological heterogeneity and non-comparability of original outcomes made it difficult to conduct a meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that SVFs have positive clinical advantages in the alignment of the anterior teeth. The potential positive effects of vibrational forces on space closure, pain experience, and root resorption in orthodontic patients are inconclusive with no sufficient information at present. High-quality clinical trials with larger sample sizes are needed to find more comprehensive evidence of the potential positive effects of vibrational forces.

REGISTRATION

The protocol for this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018098788).

FUNDING

This study has not received any contributions from private or public funding agencies.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

Effectiveness of different debonding techniques and adjunctive methods on pain and discomfort perception during debonding fixed orthodontic appliances: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pain is an unpleasant side-effect that can be experienced during orthodontic procedures including debonding of fixed appliances. Pain experience can vary depending on the appliance, debonding technique, as well as adjunctive measures used.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of different debonding techniques and adjunctive methods on pain/discomfort perception during debonding procedure (PDP) of fixed orthodontic appliances. The secondary objective was to assess the effects of anatomic location and gender on PDP of fixed orthodontic appliances.

SEARCH METHODS

Multiple electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2018. Reference lists of the included articles were manually screened.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers according to Cochrane guidelines, with disputes resolved by a third reviewer. Clinical heterogeneity in study design and methodology prevented quantitative synthesis of the data.

RESULTS

The search yielded 198 articles after the removal of duplicates. Seven studies were included in the final review with a total of 307 participants aged 12-60 years. Of the four studies comparing different debonding instruments of labial fixed appliances, two studies showed that the lift-off debonding instrument (LODI) produced lower PDP levels than ligature cutting pliers. Three studies compared adjunctive measures to reduce PDP of labial fixed appliances. Finger pressure and bite wafers significantly reduced PDP levels. Analgesics administration (ibuprofen + paracetamol tablets) 1 hour prior to debonding also reduced PDP. PDP was significantly higher in anterior segments and in females.

LIMITATIONS

The authors acknowledge that there was clinical heterogeneity among the included studies and that the potential effect of diurnal variation on pain during debonding was not considered in any of the included trials.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

There is weak evidence indicating that using the LODI may reduce PDP of labial fixed appliances. Adjunctive measures such as an intrusive force with finger pressure, bite wafers, and preoperative analgesia may further aid PDP control. Further well-designed parallel-group RCTs taking into consideration the diurnal variation in pain are required.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42017084474).

FUNDING

None.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

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.

Influence of a Lubricating Gel (Orthospeed®) on Pain and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in Orthodontic Patients during Initial Therapy with Conventional and Low-Friction Brackets: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

The aim of this study was to investigate whether statistically significant differences exist regarding pain and the impact on oral quality of life of orthodontic treatment. A conventional brackets system was compared with low-friction brackets. A total of 90 patients (male = 35, female = 55) were chosen for this randomized clinical trial. Pain was assessed at 4, 8, and 24 hours and 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 days after the start of treatment using the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire. Oral quality of life was assessed at one month, with patients with low-friction brackets describing lower levels of pain. The patients with conventional brackets indicated a worse impact on their quality of life compared to the group with low-friction brackets. Statistically significant differences were found between the groups, with maximum pain observed between the first 24 and 48 hours, and the values of minimum pain are reached after 7 days. The pain and impact on oral quality of life was statistically worse in patients with conventional brackets compared to patients with low-friction brackets. The type of bracket system used was therefore shown to influence patients' perceptions of pain and impact on their OHRQoL.

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.

Pain perception of orthodontic treatment - A cross-sectional study

Objectives:

The objectives were to evaluate the intensity of pain perceived 24 hours following insertion of fixed orthodontic appliance components i-e separators, bands and brackets.

Methods:

This cross-sectional study conducted at a Dental College in Karachi (July 2017-March 2018) investigated the amount of pain perceived during different stages of fixed orthodontic treatment. The inclusion criteria were healthy individuals without systemic disease, age 13-26 years, fixed orthodontic treatment candidates having healthy permanent first molars. The exclusion criteria were missing permanent first molars, patients requiring brass wire separators instead of elastomeric separators and molar tubes instead of bands, ongoing or previous periodontal disease and syndromic patients. Pain intensity was assessed in ninety eight patients using a Numeric Rating scale (NRS) at baseline (T0) before insertion, and 24 hours after insertion (T1) of a component. This procedure was repeated six times, twice each for separators, bands and brackets. Scoring was done on the NRS from 0 to 10 where 0 indicated no pain and 10 indicated worst pain possible.

Results:

A significant difference in perceived pain was found between baseline and after 24 hours of placement of all components (P-value 0.000). Odds ratio indicated that males were at a greater risk to feel pain than females at baseline and after 24 hours of insertion of all components. Mann-Whitney U test showed that the most painful components at baseline were bands (Mean value=0.56) and after 24 hours were brackets (Mean value 6.25).

Conclusions:

Significant increase in pain was noted 24 hours after insertion of separators, bands and brackets. The most painful components were bands at baseline and brackets after 24 hours of insertion. There were no significant variations in pain perception based on age. However, males perceived higher pain than females both at baseline and after 24 hours.

Chewing gum vs. ibuprofen in the management of orthodontic pain, a multi-centre randomised controlled trial - the effect of anxiety

OBJECTIVES

Pain is a common side effect of orthodontic treatment. An objective of this study, part of a large previously reported RCT on pain and analgesic use, was to determine the effect of anxiety on perceived pain and use of analgesia.

METHODS

1000 patients aged 11-17 years, undergoing upper and lower fixed appliance treatment in nine hospital departments were recruited into this two-arm parallel design randomised controlled trial. One arm was given sugar-free chewing gum and the other arm ibuprofen for pain relief. Neither the clinicians nor patients were blinded to assignment. In addition to recording pain experience and analgesic use for 3 days following appliance placement and first archwire change, each patient recorded their level of anxiety immediately following the fitting of the appliance and the first archwire change.

RESULTS

419 chewing gum group (84%) and 407 ibuprofen group (83%) questionnaires were returned following appliance placement, and 343 chewing gum group (70%) and 341 ibuprofen group (71%) questionnaires were returned following the first archwire change. The mean anxiety scores following fitting of the appliance and first archwire change were 2.7 (SD 2.1) and 1.6 (SD 1.8), respectively. There were weak but significant positive associations between anxiety scores and pain scores. Multi-level modelling produced a coefficient for anxiety of 0.23 (95% CI 0.17-0.28) for appliance placement, suggesting a small rise (0.23) on the 11-point pain scale for a one-point increase on the corresponding anxiety scale. Following archwire change, the corresponding coefficient was 0.32 (0.24-0.39). For ibuprofen use, again simple analyses suggested a relationship with anxiety. Multi-level logistic modelling produced an odds ratio for ibuprofen use of 1.11 (95% CI 1.07-1.15) at appliance placement and 1.21 (1.10-1.33) at the first archwire change. There was a 10-20% increase in the odds of using ibuprofen for each one-point increase on the anxiety scale. No such relationship was found between anxiety and chewing gum use. There were no adverse effects or harms reported during the trial. Approvals were granted by the Research Ethics Committee (08/H0106/139), R&D and MHRA (Eudract 2008-005522-36) and the trial was registered on the ISRCTN (79884739) and NIHR (6631) portfolios. Support was provided by the British Orthodontic Society Foundation.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a weak positive correlation between anxiety reported and pain experienced following both the initial fitting of the fixed appliances and at the subsequent archwire change. Patients that were more anxious tended to take more ibuprofen for their pain relief.

Effect of ozone and diode laser (635 nm) in reducing orthodontic pain in the maxillary arch—a randomized clinical controlled trial

The effect of ozone, diode laser irradiation, and presence of teeth crowding/spacing on pain perception in orthodontic patient was tested. Overall, 76 patients [55 women and 21 men; age 35.1(6.4) years] who met the inclusion criteria participated in the study. Immediately after fixed orthodontic appliance placement, the patients were exposed to a pain relief treatment (one single session) using either 635-nm diode laser (SmartM, Lasotronix, Warsaw, Poland) or ozone therapy (OzoneDTA, Apoza, New Taipei City, Taiwan) by placing the handpieces in the area of each teeth apex and interdental papillae, from the maxillary right first molar to the maxillary left first molar. Subjects were divided into three groups: control group (G1, n = 26), ozone (G2, n = 26, exposed to ozone therapy, generator probe type 3, working time per point 5 s, 23 points, application time 1 min and 55 s), and laser group (G3, n = 25, exposed to continuous mode diode laser, 400 mW, handpiece diameter 8 mm, spot area 0.5024 cm2, power density per second 1.59 W/cm2, dose 2 J per point, time: 5 s per point, 23 points, total energy per session 46 J, application time 1 min and 55 s). The level of teeth crowding was assessed using the Lundstrom indicator. The patients received a questionnaire for pain assessment (the Numeric Rating Scale, NRS-11, grade level 0–10) and recorded at 7 time points (1 h, 6 h, and 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 days ) after the fixed orthodontic appliance placement. The mean pain values for the diode laser, ozone, and control group were 3.6 (1.31) (95% CI, 2.95–4.25), 5.25 (3.37) (95% CI, 3.52–6.98), and 5.75 (2.40) (95% CI, 4.69–6.81), respectively. We observed lower pain values in the diode laser group compared to the control group (p = 0.0237). The use of ozone in this study did not result in significant pain reduction in comparison to control (p = 0.8040) and laser groups (p = 0.1029). There were no differences in pain perception between patients with crowded teeth and non-crowded teeth in each group (G1, p = 0.66, G2, p = 0.86, G3, p = 0.24). The use of 635-nm diode laser led to decreased pain perception; however, ozone and presence of teeth crowding/spacing did not affect the pain perception in orthodontic patients during the first 5 days after the fixed orthodontic appliance placement.

Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated and compared the completeness of reporting of abstracts of orthodontics systematic reviews before and after the publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Abstracts Checklist (PRISMA-A).

METHODS

Abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthodontics published in PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases before March 23, 2018, that met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, were evaluated using the 12 items of PRISMA-A, scoring each item from 0 to 2. Abstracts were classified into 2 groups: before and after publication of the PRISMA-A checklist. Three calibrated evaluators (intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa > 0.8) assessed the scores for compliance with the checklist. The number of authors, country of affiliation of the first author, performance of meta-analysis, and topic of the article were recorded. A regression analysis was performed to assess the associations between abstract characteristics and the PRISMA-A scores.

RESULTS

Of 1034 abstracts evaluated, 389 were included in the analysis. The mean PRISMA-A score was 53.39 (95% CI, 51.83-54.96). The overall score for studies published after the publication of the checklist was significantly higher than for studies published before (P ≤ 0.0001). The components returning significantly higher scores after publication of PRISMA-A were title (P = 0.024), information from databases (P = 0.026), risk of bias (P ≤ 0.0001), included studies (P ≤ 0.0001), synthesis of results (P ≤ 0.0001), interpretation of results (P = 0.035), financing and conflict of interest (P ≤ 0.0001), and registration (P ≤ 0.0001). These results showed the positive effect of PRISMA-A had on the quality of reporting of orthodontics systematic reviews. Nevertheless, the poor adherence revealed that there is still need for improvement in the quality of abstract reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of reporting of abstracts of orthodontic systematic reviews and meta-analyses increased after the introduction of PRISMA-A.

Pain relief after orthodontic archwire installation-a comparison between intervention with paracetamol and chewing gum: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pain and discomfort are main concerns at the commencement of orthodontic treatment. It may have negative impact on compliance or even discourage patients from being treated. Orthodontic pain can be alleviated by paracetamol or use of chewing gum. However, studies comparing their effectiveness are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of paracetamol versus chewing gum for pain alleviation and to investigate the frequency of bracket loss during the first day of fixed orthodontic treatment.

TRAIL DESIGN

Prospective randomized multicentre clinical trial.

METHODS

Sixty patients (28 boys and 32 girls), between 12 and 18 years of age were randomly allocated either to take paracetamol (31 patients) or to use chewing gum (29 patients). After one arch bonding and insertion of the initial archwire, the patients rated the sensation of pain on a visual analogue scale with the jaw at rest and when biting after 6 hours (T1), at bedtime (T2), and the next morning (T3). Paracetamol (1000 mg) was taken 1 hour and chewing gum was used 10 minutes prior to pain rating at T2 and T3. A simple method of randomization was used in this study, and blinding of subjects and the operators to the type of intervention was not possible because of the nature of the treatments.

RESULTS

There was no detectable difference in pain sensation between the groups at T1. At T2 and T3 the chewing gum group displayed higher mean values than the paracetamol group but when adjusting for age, gender, and mode of pain registration, there was no significant difference between the groups. There was no bracket loss in the chewing gum group, whereas two patients in the paracetamol group lost two brackets.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of chewing gum and paracetamol for initial orthodontic pain relief seems equivalent. Short term use of chewing gum is not a risk factor for bracket loss.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was not registered.

A randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of verbal behavior modification and acetaminophen on orthodontic pain

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of verbal behavior modification, acetaminophen, and the combined effectiveness of verbal behavior modification along with acetaminophen on orthodontic pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and forty orthodontic fixed appliance patients were randomly assigned to four groups. Group A was administered acetaminophen, group B was given verbal behavior modification, group C was administered acetaminophen as well as verbal behavior modification, and group D was placebo-controlled. A visual analog scale was used to assess pain intensity after 1 week of separator placement.

RESULTS

Group A had less mean pain intensity when compared to group B at 6 hours (P < .001) and at 1 (P < .001) and 2 (P = .002) days. Group C patients encountered less mean pain intensity when compared to group B patients at 6 hours (P < .001) and at 1 (P < .001), 2 (P < .001), and 4 (P = .001) days. There was a statistically significant difference between groups A and C (group C experienced less pain intensity) after 6 hours (P = .004) and at day 4 (P = .009) after separator placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Acetaminophen is the main agent of orthodontic pain reduction after separator placement, with verbal behavior serving as an adjunct to it.

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.

Effect of low-level laser therapy on tooth-related pain and somatosensory function evoked by orthodontic treatment

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) may have an effect on the pain associated with orthodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of LLLT on pain and somatosensory sensitization induced by orthodontic treatment. Forty individuals (12–33 years old; mean ± standard deviations: 20.8 ± 5.9 years) scheduled to receive orthodontic treatment were randomly divided into a laser group (LG) or a placebo group (PG) (1:1). The LG received LLLT (810-nm gallium-aluminium-arsenic diode laser in continuous mode with the power set at 400 mW, 2 J·cm^–2) at 0 h, 2 h, 24 h, 4 d, and 7 d after treatment, and the PG received inactive treatment at the same time points. In both groups, the non-treated side served as a control. A numerical rating scale (NRS) of pain, pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), cold detection thresholds (CDTs), warmth detection thresholds (WDTs), cold pain thresholds (CPTs), and heat pain thresholds (HPTs) were tested on both sides at the gingiva and canine tooth and on the hand. The data were analysed by a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). The NRS pain scores were significantly lower in the LG group (P = 0.01). The CDTs, CPTs, WDTs, HPTs, and PPTs at the gingiva and the PPTs at the canine tooth were significantly less sensitive on the treatment side of the LG compared with that of the PG (P < 0.033). The parameters tested also showed significantly less sensitivity on the non-treatment side of the LG compared to that of the PG (P < 0.043). There were no differences between the groups for any quantitative sensory testing (QST) measures of the hand. The application of LLLT appears to reduce the pain and sensitivity of the tooth and gingiva associated with orthodontic treatment and may have contralateral effects within the trigeminal system but no generalized QST effects. Thus, the present study indicated a significant analgesia effect of LLLT application during orthodontic treatment. Further clinical applications are suggested.

Repeated applications of low-level laser therapy during and after orthodontic procedures could help reduce pain and discomfort. Many orthodontic patients experience pain in the hours and days following treatment, which impacts on treatment participation. Wenjing Chen at Nanjing Medical University and co-workers assessed whether low-level laser therapy (LLLT) can reduce pain and sensitivity in teeth and surrounding tissues. They divided 40 patients into two groups; one was given repeated LLLT in the hours and days following procedures, while the other group received a placebo course. They tested both groups for sensitivity to stimuli including heat and pressure, in the mouth and on the hands. LLLT significantly reduced pain in the mouth relative to the placebo group. No differences were found in tests on the hands, suggesting LLLT works as a targeted analgesia.

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.

Pain and chewing sensitivity during fixed orthodontic treatment in extraction and non-extraction patients

Purpose:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in pain perception and chewing sensitivity between extraction and non-extraction patients.

Subjects and Methods:

Thirty orthodontic patients (11 males, 19 females) were included in this study who were classified as extraction (n=15; 6 males, 9 females) and non-extraction patients (n=15; 7 males, 8 females). The mean age of patients were 15.10±1.83 years in non-extraction group and 15.44±0.75 years in extraction group. The patients were asked to complete the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) questionnaire and they were asked to mark the presence or absence of sensitivity during 7 days after the first arch wire placement. Pain intensity comparison between groups was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test. The Friedman test was used to analyze within-group differences over time.

Results:

There were no significant differences in pain scores between the groups. Pain levels significantly decreased between day 1 and day 3 in both the groups. No differences were found in the chewing sensitivity between the non-extraction and extraction groups.

Conclusion:

No difference in the pain perception was observed between the extraction and non-extraction patients during the 7 days after arch wire placement.

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.

Low-level laser therapy effects on pain perception related to the use of orthodontic elastomeric separators

INTRODUCTION:

Some patients refer to pre-banding orthodontic separation as a painful orthodontic procedure. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been reported to have local analgesic effect.

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of this single-blind study was to investigate the perception of pain caused by orthodontic elastomeric separators with and without a single LLLT application (6J).

METHODS:

The sample comprised 79 individuals aged between 13 and 34 years old at orthodontic treatment onset. Elastomeric separators were placed in first maxillary molars at mesial and distal surfaces and kept in place for three days. The volunteers scored pain intensity on a visual analogue scale (VAS) after 6 and 12 hours, and after the first, second and third days. One third of patients received laser applications, whereas another third received placebo applications and the remaining ones were controls. Applications were performed in a split-mouth design. Thus, three groups (laser, placebo and control) were assessed.

RESULTS:

No differences were found among groups considering pain perception in all periods observed.

CONCLUSION:

The use of a single-dose of LLLT did not cause significant reduction in orthodontic pain perception. Overall pain perception due to orthodontic separator placement varied widely and was usually mild.

Evaluation of Low Level Laser Therapy on Pain Perception Following Orthodontic Elastomeric Separation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Periodontal pain caused by elastomeric separators is a very common problem in the commencement of orthodontic treatment. Previous studies have shown good results in reducing this pain by Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) and different protocols of application have been suggested in the literature.

AIM

This trial aimed to evaluate LLLT on managing orthodontic pain caused by elastomeric separators and to compare single versus double irradiation in possible pain reduction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A clinical randomized compound (parallel-group and split-mouth design) trial was conducted on 36 patients between 12 and 26 years of age. Elastomeric separators were placed at the mesial and distal surfaces of the first molars in one jaw (upper or lower) for each patient and in only one side of the mouth (the other side served as the placebo side). The trial had two groups: the first group received single irradiation of LLLT [Gallium Aluminum Arsenide (GaAlAs): 830 nm, 4J/cm², 100mW] immediately after separators insertion, where as the second group received double irradiation immediately after separators insertion and after 24hours. All patients were instructed to rate the level of pain at 1, 6, 24, 48, 96 hours on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The student 't' tests, repeated measures ANOVA and LSD post-hoc tests were employed.

RESULTS

LLLT was successful in reducing post-separation pain when the experimental side was compared to the placebo side at all assessment times in each group (p<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between single and double irradiation groups in terms of pain reduction (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

GaAlAs LLLT application reduced early orthodontic pain caused by elastomeric separators by single or double irradiation.

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.

Escaping the Adverse Impacts of NSAIDs on Tooth Movement During Orthodontics: Current Evidence Based on a Meta-Analysis

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to relieve pain during orthodontic treatments; however, the possible inhibition of orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) by NSAIDs has been debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of some commonly used NSAIDs on OTM during orthodontic treatments. A review of the literature identified relevant studies up to August 2014. A meta-analysis was performed following the guidelines of the Cochrane review group and the PRISMA statement. Studies were identified by searching PUBMED, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Meta-analysis was performed in a fixed/random-effect model using Revman 5.1.1.Five studies, including 128 subjects and 3 main NSAIDs (celecoxib, acetaminophen, and aspirin), were included for quantitative synthesis and analysis. Celecoxib did not inhibit OTM except with middle-term use (2-3 weeks) (95% CI [-6.47 to -0.43], P = 0.03). Acetaminophen did not inhibit OTM except with long-term use (>1 month) and low-dose use (∼100 mg/kg per day), (95% CI [-2.96 to -0.78], P = 0.0008; 95%CI [-2.42, -0.46], P = 0.004; respectively). Aspirin was found to inhibit OTM (95%CI [-2.40 to -0.64], P = 0.0008). Our systematic review with meta-analysis suggests that aspirin might inhibit OTM in rat models, whereas the short-term (<1 week) use of celecoxib and acetaminophen for relieving orthodontic pain would not inhibit OTM. Well-designed human research should be completed before a solid conclusion can be reached.

Effects of Danggui-Shaoyao-San on the Influence of Spatial Learning and Memory Induced by Experimental Tooth Movement

BACKGROUND

The pain caused by orthodontic treatment has been considered as tough problems in orthodontic practice. There is substantial literature on pain which has exactly effected on learning and memory; orthodontic tooth movement affected the emotional status has been showed positive outcomes. Danggui-Shaoyao-San (DSS) is a Traditional Chinese Medicine prescription that has been used for pain treatment and analgesic effect for orthodontic pain via inhibiting the activations of neuron and glia. We raised the hypothesis that DSS could restore the impaired abilities of spatial learning and memory via regulating neuron or glia expression in the hippocampus.

METHODS

A total of 36 rats were randomly divided into three groups: (1) Sham group (n = 12), rats underwent all the operation procedure except for the placement of orthodontic forces and received saline treatment; (2) experimental tooth movement (ETM) group (n = 12), rats received saline treatment and ETM; (3) DSS + ETM (DETM) group (n = 12), rats received DSS treatment and ETM. All DETM group animals were administered with DSS at a dose of 150 mg/kg. Morris water maze test was evaluated; immunofluorescent histochemistry was used to identify astrocytes activation, and immunofluorescent dendritic spine analysis was used to identify the dendritic spines morphological characteristics expression levels in hippocampus.

RESULTS

Maze training sessions during the 5 successive days revealed that ETM significantly deficits in progressive learning in rats, DSS that was given from day 5 prior to ETM enhanced progressive learning. The ETM group rats took longer to cross target quadrant during the probe trial and got less times to cross-platform than DETM group. The spine density in hippocampus in ETM group was significantly decreased compared to the sham group. In addition, thin and mature spine density were decreased too. However, the DSS administration could reverse the dendritic shrinkage and increase the spine density compared to the ETM group. Astrocytes activation showed the opposite trend in hippocampus dentate gyrus (DG).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with DSS could restore the impaired abilities on ETM-induced decrease of learning and memory behavior. The decreased spines density in the hippocampus and astrocytes activation in DG of hippocampus in the ETM group rats may be related with the decline of the ability of learning and memory. The ability to change the synaptic plasticity in hippocampus after DSS administration may be correlated with the alleviation of impairment of learn and memory after ETM treatment.

Supplemental vibrational force does not reduce pain experience during initial alignment with fixed orthodontic appliances: a multicenter randomized clinical trial

This prospective randomized trial investigated the effect of supplemental vibrational force on orthodontic pain during alignment with fixed-appliances. Eighty-one subjects < 20 years-old undergoing extraction-based fixed-appliance treatment were randomly allocated to supplementary (20-minutes/day) use of an intra-oral vibrational device (AcceleDent^®) (n = 29); an identical non-functional (sham) device (n = 25) or fixed-appliances only (n = 27). Each subject recorded pain intensity (using a 100-mm visual-analogue scale) and intake of oral analgesia in a questionnaire, following appliance-placement (T1) and first-adjustment (T2) for 1-week (immediately-after, 4, 24, 72-hours and at 1-week). Mean maximum-pain for the total sample was 72.96 mm [SD 21.59; 95%CI 68.19–77.74 mm] with no significant differences among groups (P = 0.282). Subjects taking analgesics reported slightly higher maximum-pain although this was not significant (P = 0.170). The effect of intervention was independent of analgesia (P = 0.883). At T1 and T2, a statistically and clinically significant increase in mean pain was seen at 4 and 24-hours, declining at 72-hours and becoming insignificant at 1-week. For mean alignment-rate, pain-intensity and use of analgesics, no significant differences existed between groups (P > 0.003). The only significant predictor for mean pain was time. Use of an AcceleDent vibrational device had no significant effect on orthodontic pain or analgesia consumption during initial alignment with fixed appliances.

Influence of activation protocol on perceived pain during rapid maxillary expansion

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the influence of two different activation protocols on the timing and intensity of pain during rapid maxillary expansion (RME).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 112 prepubertal patients (54 males and 58 females, mean age 11.00 ± 1.80 years) with constricted maxillary arches underwent RME with two different activation protocols (group 1: one activation/day; group 2: two activations/day). Patients were provided with a numeric rating scale (NRS) and the Faces Pain Scale (FPS) to correctly assess their daily pain.

RESULTS

Subjects treated with RME at two activations/day reported statistically significantly greater amounts of pain than subjects treated with RME at one activation/day. Differences related to gender and skeletal maturity were found.

CONCLUSION

The choice of activation protocol influences the perceived pain during RME, and less daily expansion is correlated to less pain. Pain reported during RME could be influenced by skeletal maturity and gender of the subjects under treatment.

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

Effect of single-dose low-level helium-neon laser irradiation on orthodontic pain: a split-mouth single-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Pain is the most common complication of orthodontic treatment. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been suggested as a new analgesic treatment free of the adverse effects of analgesic medications. However, it is not studied thoroughly, and the available studies are quite controversial. Moreover, helium neon (He-Ne) laser has not been assessed before.

METHODS

This split-mouth placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was performed on 16 male and 14 female orthodontic patients requiring bilateral upper canine retraction. The study was performed at a private clinic in Sari, Iran, in 2014. It was single blind: patients, orthodontist, and personnel were blinded of the allocations, but the laser operator (periodontist) was not blinded. Once canine retractor was activated, a randomly selected maxillary quarter received a single dose of He-Ne laser irradiation (632.8 nm, 10 mw, 6 j/cm(2) density). The other quarter served as the placebo side, treated by the same device but powered off. In the first, second, fourth, and seventh days, blinded patients rated their pain sensed on each side at home using visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires. There was no harm identified during or after the study. Pain changes were analyzed using two- and one-way repeated-measures ANOVA, Bonferroni, and t-test (α = 0.01, β > 0.99). This trial was not registered. It was self-funded by the authors.

RESULTS

Sixteen males and 11 females remained in the study (aged 12-21). Average pain scores sensed in all 4 intervals on control and laser sides were 4.06 ± 2.85 and 2.35 ± 1.77, respectively (t-test P < 0.0001). One-way ANOVA showed significant pain declines over time, in each group (P < 0.0001). Two-way ANOVA showed significant effects for LLLT (P < 0.0001) and time (P = <0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose He-Ne laser therapy might reduce orthodontic pain caused by retracting maxillary canines.

Effect of Low Level Laser Therapy on Pain Reduction After Midpalatal Expansion in Rats

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this experimental study was to evaluate the efficacy of low level laser therapy (LLLT) for pain reduction after midpalatal expansion in rats.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty male Sprague six-week old rats weighing 180±10g were divided into seven groups (two experimental groups of 24 rats and one control group of 12 rats). The experimental groups were subjected to expansion with or without LLLT. The health status of each rat was monitored starting seven days prior to the experiment and evaluated by regular body weight monitoring during the study period. Diode laser with 810nm wavelength and 100 mw output power was used. Laser therapy and body weight monitoring were performed on days 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14. The data were analyzed by One-way repeated measures ANOVA.

RESULTS

The body weight of the experimental groups significantly decreased in the first two days because of the pain and difficult nutrition with the new appliance. Within the next two days, the body weight of all rats increased but this increase was significantly higher in the irradiated compared to the non-irradiated group. This significant improvement continued until day 14 and then between days 14 and 30 the rats gained weight similarly in the irradiated and control groups.

CONCLUSION

The study results showed that laser irradiated group continued to gain weight easier than the control group. This may be due to more efficient pain control due to laser irradiation after midpalatal expansion.

Does low level laser therapy relieve the pain caused by the placement of the orthodontic separators?--A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Pain caused by orthodontic treatment can affect patient's compliance and even force them to terminate treatments. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate of the analgesic effect of low level laser therapy (LLLT) after placement of the orthodontic separators.

METHODS

Five databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, China Biology Medicine disc (SinoMed CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched for all the appropriate studies in June, 2014. Two reviewers screened the research results under our inclusion criteria and evaluated the risk of bias independently. Then the data of the included studies was extracted for quantitative analysis by the Review Manager 5.1 software.

RESULTS

Six studies were included in our meta-analysis finally. Comparing to the placebo group, the LLLT has good analgesic effect at 6 h, 1d, 2d, 3d after placement of separators which is of statistical significance. While at 2 h, 4d, 5d after the placement, the results tend to support LLLT, but not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Based on current included studies, LLLT can reduce the pain caused by the placement of separators effectively. However, because of the high heterogeneity, well designed RCTs are required in the future.

Pain and discomfort perceived during the initial stage of active fixed orthodontic treatment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

As the most common complication of orthodontic treatment, pain can negatively impact quality of life and cause patients to discontinue treatment. However, few studies have evaluated pain during orthodontic treatment, with controversial findings. This study assessed the intensity and duration of pain and discomfort caused by active orthodontic treatment.

METHODS

This descriptive cross-sectional study examined 67 patients (22 men, 45 females; age range: 18-32 years) undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment. Patients were interviewed after the active treatment stage to assess their perceived pain and discomfort at different sites during different activities by a visual analogue scale. Frequency and duration of pain in different areas were analyzed by the chi-squared and chi-squared goodness-of-fit tests (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Among the 67 patients, 65.7% experienced general dentogingival pain or discomfort and 34.3% had localized dentogingival pain or discomfort (p = 0.010, chi-squared goodness-of-fit test). Masticating soft foods reduced discomfort (p = 0.000, chi-squared) in the tongue, cheeks, and in or around the teeth and gingivae. Pain and discomfort were mostly moderate while masticating sticky, fibrous, and firm foods. Mild pains were mostly reported during tooth brushing and while consuming soft foods (p < 0.05, chi-squared). Pain and discomfort tended to last for more than 4 weeks, except in the tongue, where pain and discomfort lasted less than 4 weeks (p < 0.05, chi-squared goodness-of-fit test).

CONCLUSIONS

Pain and discomfort occur for more than 4 weeks after beginning fixed orthodontic treatment. Changing diets to incorporate softer foods is recommended to alleviate pain.

Effects of laser-assisted cosmetic smile lift gingivectomy on postoperative bleeding and pain in fixed orthodontic patients: a controlled clinical trial

Background and objective

Diode lasers are becoming popular in gingival treatment following orthodontic treatments. Despite their merit and clinical implications, postoperative pain and bleeding after surgery with diode lasers are not assessed except in few controversial studies.

Method

This controlled clinical trial was conducted on 30 healthy orthodontic patients aged 17–29 years, needing esthetic-only gingivectomy in the anterior maxilla. The patients were randomly divided into two groups of 15 each: experimental (laser-assisted surgery) and control (traditional surgery using scalpels). The bleeding rate following the surgery was assessed using the bleeding criteria established by the World Health Organization. The postsurgical pain level was recorded using visual analog scales immediately after the surgery and in patients who consumed analgesics, also 2 h after the analgesic consumption. The data were analyzed using the independent-samples t, Mann-Whitney U, and chi-square tests (α = 0.05).

Results

The average bleeding rates were 1.15 and 0.36 in the conventional and laser groups, respectively (Mann-Whitney U P < 0.05). Experimental patients had no postsurgical pain (VAS1 and VAS2 = 0). In the control group, the average VAS1 pain was 5.2 out of 10. The difference between VAS1 values in the control/experimental groups was significant (Mann-Whitney U P < 0.001).

Conclusion

940-nm diode laser seems promising in reducing postoperative bleeding and pain of patients needing cosmetic smile lift surgeries.