Chewing gum for pain control following orthodontic separator placement

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 (P = 0.07, 95% confidence intervals [CI] were 0.80-1.01 for the CGC and 0.70-0.91 for the CG). 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 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 assessment between chewing gum, bite wafers, and ibuprofen in pain control following separators placement among orthodontic patients

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of chewing gum and using bite wafers in reducing pain after the placement of separators in orthodontic patients and to compare that efficiency with ibuprofen use. Additionally, this study evaluated the effect of non-pharmacological pain control methods on the frequency of separators falling out.

Methods

The study sample comprised 105 female patients between 15 and 35 years of age. The patients were randomly selected and classified into three groups (35 each). Each group was given either ibuprofen, viscoelastic bite wafers, or chewing gum immediately after the placement of separators and every 8 h for 1 week, as needed. The patients were asked to record their pain perception using a visual analog scale following separator placement at 2 h, 6 h, bedtime, 24 h, and at 2, 3, and 7 days. Analysis of variance testing was used for the data analysis.

Results

Among the three studied groups, there were no significant differences in pain perception at any time point. The patients experienced significantly higher pain scores at bedtime and 24 h after separator placement. In addition, there were statistically significant findings in pain perception at different time points within each pain relief method (p = 0.000, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The use of chewing gum and bite wafers in alleviating orthodontic pain was beneficial and comparable to ibuprofen use following the placement of separators before orthodontic treatment among orthodontic patients.

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.

Comparative assessment of chewing sugar-free gum and conventional analgesic drugs in alleviating self-reported pain associated with fixed orthodontic appliances: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of chewing sugar-free gum towards alleviating self-reported orthodontic treatment (OT) pain compared with conventional analgesic drugs (CADs).

SEARCH SOURCES

An unrestricted search of indexed databases and manual searching was performed up to September 2021.

DATA SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the impact of chewing gum and CADs on relieving self-reported orthodontic pain were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data screening, extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment were performed by two authors. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. The quality of available evidence was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs were included. Eight RCTs used the Visual Analogue Scale for self-reported pain assessment, while one RCT used the Numeric Rating Scale. Five RCTs had a high RoB and four RCTs had a moderate RoB. Power analysis for sample size estimation was performed in six RCTs. Separate meta-analyses were performed by pooling quantitative data from five RCTs that compared self-reported orthodontic pain between chewing gum and ibuprofen groups for the following timepoints: baseline; immediately; 2 hours; 6 hours; bedtime; 24 hours; 2 days; 3 days; 5 days; and 7 days after the placement of orthodontic appliances. None of the timepoints individually indicated a difference in self-reported pain scores between chewing sugar-free gum and ibuprofen groups. The overall level of evidence was very low.

CONCLUSION

Chewing sugar-free gum is a potentially useful alternative to CADs towards pain alleviation during fixed OT.