Effectiveness of low-level laser therapy and chewing gum in reducing orthodontic pain: A randomized controlled trial

The effect of chewing gum on the rate of en-masse space closure: A randomised controlled trial

AIM

To evaluate the effect of chewing gum on the rate of space closure, oral hygiene, pain during space closure and appliance breakage in patients undergoing fixed appliance therapy.

DESIGN

A prospective, single-centre, two-arm, parallel, double-blinded randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Orthodontic unit of a privately funded hospital, Chennai, India.

PARTICIPANTS

In total, 28 participants were randomly allocated into a chewing gum group (CGG) (n = 14) or a control group (CG) (n = 14).

METHODS

Baseline data were collected at the start of retraction (T0), at 4 weeks (T1), 8 weeks (T2) and 12 weeks (T3) after the start of retraction. Rate of space closure, pain, oral hygiene and appliance breakage were assessed at T1, T2 and T3. Data were analysed using an independent t-test with P < 0.05 considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

The mean rate of space closure in the CGG was 0.9 ± 0.2 mm/month and 0.8 ± 0.2 mm/month in the CG (mean difference 0.1mm/month ± 0.16; 95% confidence interval -0.055-0.26). In both the groups, oral hygiene became worse between T0 and T3. At T0 and T1, participants in the CGG reported less pain at 24 h and 7 days when compared to the CG (P < 0.05). At T2 and T3, participants in the CGG reported less pain at 0 h, 24 h and 7 days when compared to the CG (P < 0.05). Appliance breakage in both groups was minimal, with an odds ratio of 0.7 (95% CI 0.1-3.8) and was similar (P = 0.66).

CONCLUSION

There was a minimal increase that was clinically not significant in the rate of space closure with chewing gum. Chewing gum ensured better oral hygiene, helped alleviate pain and had no effect on appliance breakage during space closure.

Comparative efficacy of pharmaceutical (Ibuprofen) and non-pharmaceutical (photobiomodulation, and chewing gum) interventions for pain reduction after elastomeric separator placement in orthodontic patients: a randomized clinical trial

This study compared the efficacy of pharmaceutical (ibuprofen) and non-pharmaceutical (photobiomodulation and chewing gum) interventions for pain reduction after elastomeric separator placement in orthodontic patients. This 3-arm, parallel-group randomized clinical trial was conducted on 90 orthodontic patients. The level of anxiety and pain threshold of patients were measured at baseline using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and an algometer, respectively. The patients were randomly assigned to three groups (n = 30; equal number of males and females). In the laser group, 940 nm diode laser (Epic X, Biolase, USA, 12.35 J/cm2 energy density and 300 mW power in continuous-wave mode., The cross-sectional area of the laser handpiece tip was 1.7 cm2.) was irradiated to the buccal and lingual surfaces for 35 s each, prior to placement of separators. In the gum group, the patients were asked to chew a piece of sugar-free gum immediately after the placement of separators and repeat every 8 h for 5 min for one week in case of pain. In the ibuprofen group, patients received 400 mg ibuprofen (Hakim Pharmaceuticals, Tehran, Iran) after the placement of separators and were asked to take one tablet every 8 h for one week in case of pain. The pain score was recorded using the Modified McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). The normality of data distribution was analyzed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. ANOVA was applied to compare age, and the Chi-square and Monte Carlo Chi-square tests were used to compare gender and patient responses to the questions among the groups. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare the pain score at different time points and among the three groups. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 19 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) at 0.05 level of significance. Data analysis in this study had an intention to treat approach. Although the pain score was slightly lower in ibuprofen and gum groups, the difference among the three groups was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). 'Repeated measures ANOVA showed no significant effect of method of pain reduction on pain score (F = 1.520, P = 0.225). Time had a significant effect on pain score (F = 20.310, P < 0.001). The interaction effect of time and pain reduction method on pain score was not significant (F = 0.737, P = 0.651). patients experienced a lower level of pain in the ibuprofen and chewing gum groups, the difference in pain score was not significant among the three groups (P = 0.225). patients experienced a higher level of pain at 12 and 24 hours after the placement of separators in all groups. Considering the comparably equal analgesic efficacy of this modalities, non-pharmaceutical interventions can be used for pain reduction of elastomeric separator. The study protocol was registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT20210927052611N1). Date of registration 2022/03/14.

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.

The effect of physical interventions on pain control after orthodontic treatment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Pain is a frequent adverse reaction during orthodontic treatment, which can significantly reduce treatment compliance and compromise the expected treatment effect. Physical interventions have been used to alleviate pain after orthodontic treatment, but their effectiveness is controversial. This study used a network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of various physical interventions typically used in managing pain after orthodontic treatment, with a view to provide evidence-based recommendations for representative interventions for orthodontic pain relief during peak pain intensity.

METHODS

A systematic search of six electronic databases, from their respective inception dates, was conducted to identify relevant literature on the efficacy of various typical physical interventions for managing pain after orthodontic treatment. Literature screening was performed according to the Cochrane System Evaluator's Manual. Stata 16.0 was used to assess heterogeneity, inconsistency, publication bias, and sensitivity to generate an evidence network diagram and conduct a network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 771 articles were reviewed to collect literature on interventions, including low-level laser therapy (LLLT), vibration, acupuncture, and chewing. Of these, 28 studies using a visual analog scale (VAS) as an outcome indicator were included. The results showed that LLLT, vibration, acupuncture, and chewing effectively relieved the pain symptoms in patients after orthodontic treatment. At 24 h post-treatment, LLLT (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] = 80.8) and vibration (SUCRA = 71.1) were the most effective interventions. After 48 h of treatment, acupuncture (SUCRA = 89.6) showed a definite advantage as the best intervention.

CONCLUSION

LLLT, vibration, acupuncture, and chewing can alleviate pain associated with orthodontic treatment. Among these interventions, acupuncture was found to be the most effective at 48 h after orthodontic treatment. In addition, acupuncture demonstrated long-lasting and stable pain-relieving effects. However, further studies are needed to determine the most suitable equipment-specific parameters for acupuncture in relieving pain associated with orthodontic treatment.

Comparison of the Effects of Ketorolac and Acetaminophen on RANK-L Levels in the Gingival Crevicular Fluid during Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Pilot Study

Background: Patients usually present pain due to the release of different inflammatory mediators such as prostaglandin E2 and RANK-L. Analgesics such as acetaminophen and ketorolac can inhibit RANK-L expression and this can affect orthodontic treatment by decreasing bone remodeling and slowing orthodontic dental movement. Several studies have reported a decrease in dental movement after administering some non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Proposal: The objective was to evaluate the RANK-L levels and a possible modulation by administering acetaminophen and ketorolac in patients starting orthodontic treatment. Methodology: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial was carried out with 24 subjects divided into three study groups: calcined magnesia as a placebo, acetaminophen, and ketorolac. Gingival crevicular fluid was obtained at four time points: before pharmacological intervention, at 24 h, at 48 h, and on the 5th day. RANK-L concentrations were evaluated through ELISA analysis. Also, interproximal space generated by the elastic separator at the end of the study was recorded in the different study groups using the visual analog scale. Results: An increase in RANK-L at 24 h was observed in the placebo group compared to the ketorolac and acetaminophen groups. However, no significant differences were observed in the interproximal space at day 5 in the three study groups. Conclusion: Patients who do not take analgesics at the start of orthodontic treatment have higher levels of RANK-L. Therefore, the use of ketorolac or acetaminophen could decrease bone remodeling and interfere with orthodontic dental movement.

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.

Effect of chewing gum on orthodontic pain in patients receiving fixed orthodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of chewing gum on orthodontic pain and to determine the rate of bracket breakage associated with fixed orthodontic appliances.

METHODS

This review and its reporting were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISMA guidelines. Six electronic databases were searched up to March 16, 2023, to identify relevant studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Furthermore, grey literature resources were searched. The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool 2 was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan, and sensitivity analysis and publication bias analysis were performed using STATA software. GRADE tool was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies with 2116 participants were ultimately included in this review, and 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the blank group, chewing gum had a significant pain relieving effect at all times after fixation of the initial archwire (P ≤ 0.05). No significant difference was found between the chewing gum group and the analgesics group at any timepoints (P > 0.05). Only four studies evaluated the rate of bracket breakage and revealed that chewing gum did not increase the rate of bracket breakage. The sensitivity analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the pooled outcomes after the included studies were removed one at times, and Egger analysis revealed no significant publication bias in included studies (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Chewing gum is a non-invasive, low-cost and convenient method that has a significant effect on relieving orthodontic pain and has no effect on the rate of bracket breakage. Therefore, chewing gum can be recommended as a suitable substitute for analgesics to reduce orthodontic pain.

The efficacy of chewing gum in the reduction of orthodontic pain at its peak intensity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of chewing gum on the intensity of pain in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search strategy that included both a manual search and a search of electronic databases was implemented; the electronic databases included PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ScienceDirect, Scopus, and EBSCO. Only randomized controlled trials were included in this study. All of the studies were assessed independently and in duplicate in accordance with the exclusion and inclusion criteria. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias within the included studies, and the GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were included in the final analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that chewing gum significantly reduced pain intensity in comparison to pharmacologic agents (mean difference [MD] -0.50 [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.90 to -0.10], P = .01). When compared with a placebo, chewing gum significantly reduced pain intensity (MD -0.60 [95% CI -1.06 to -0.13], P = .01), while bite wafer and chewing gum groups had the same levels of reduction in pain intensity (MD -0.15 [95% CI -0.56 to 0.26], P = .48).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment, chewing gum was significantly more effective than both pharmacologic agents and placebo in reducing orthodontic pain 24 hours after the initial placement of the archwire.

LOW-LEVEL LASER THERAPY MAY REDUCE PAIN ASSOCIATED WITH ORTHODONTIC SEPARATOR PLACEMENT

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Farzan, A. K. Khaleghi (2021). "The Effectiveness of Low-Level Laser Therapy in Pain Induced by Orthodontic Separator Placement: A Systematic Review." J Lasers Med Sci 12: e29.

SOURCE OF FUNDING

None.

TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN

Systematic review.

The protocol of low-level laser therapy in orthodontic practice: A scoping review of literature

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been widely investigated as an adjunct technique for orthodontic treatment due to photobiomodulation effect. LLLT appears to be supportive for an orthodontic practice in terms of tooth movement acceleration, pain relief, and root resorption management. The decrease in these adverse effects will enhance the compliance in orthodontic patients, which could positively impact treatment outcomes. However, there seemed to be inconsistency in the impact of LLLT as well as its laser and treatment parameters. This scoping review aimed to evaluate the impact of different irradiation parameters on tooth movement acceleration, pain relief, and root resorption as well as to construct a protocol of LLLT in orthodontic practice. The search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, and the reference lists of identified articles. The last search was conducted on October 10, 2021 to identify experiments in humans regarding the application of LLLT as noninvasive treatment in orthodontic practice published between 2010 and 2021. However, they were excluded if they were not clinical research, if they did not report the source of laser, or if they were not relevant to tooth movement, pain perception, and root resorption, or if they were not available in English or in full-text. Following the systematic search and selection process, 60 articles were included in this review. A majority of included articles were published in the past few years. The findings of this review supported the application of LLLT in orthodontic practice with purposes of tooth movement acceleration and pain reduction. The positive impact of LLLT on root resorption had not been clearly evident yet. As this review demonstrated heterogeneity of both laser and treatment parameters, further research should be required to ensure the effectiveness of its specific parameters in orthodontic practice.