The effect of preemptive and/or postoperative ibuprofen therapy for orthodontic pain

Effectiveness of TENS and Acetaminophen for Pain Control During Orthodontic Treatment: A Comparative Study

Background

Orthodontic treatment often induces pain, especially post appliance placement. This study compares transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and acetaminophen for orthodontic pain management.

Materials and Methods

A randomized trial included 120 fixed orthodontic patients divided into three groups (n = 40): Group A received TENS, group B received acetaminophen, and group C was the control. Data were expressed as mean ± SD. Repeated ANOVA analysis compared mean values, followed by post-hoc Tukey analysis. Pain levels were assessed using a visual analog scale before any intervention and at 30 minutes, 6 hours, and 24 hours post activation.

Results

TENS and acetaminophen significantly reduced pain compared to the control. Group A (TENS) showed significant pain reduction post activation. Group B (acetaminophen) exhibited comparable pain relief, with no significant difference between groups.

Conclusion

Both TENS and acetaminophen effectively manage orthodontic appliance activation pain.

Interventions to Reduce Intra-Operative and Post-Operative Pain Associated with Routine Dental Procedures in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

implementing appropriate pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to alleviate pain related to routine dental procedures in paediatric patients could enhance children's ability to manage dental care. The aim of this review was to investigate the effectiveness of and provide recommendations for interventions that can be used to reduce intra-operative and post-operative pain associated with routine paediatric dental procedures.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) was conducted. Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the effectiveness of the interventions using the Cohen's d standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcomes. The GRADE tool was used to assess the certainty of evidence to make recommendations.

RESULTS

The review included forty-five RCTs comprising 3093 children. Thirty-seven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, which showed the effectiveness of behavioural interventions (SMD = -0.50, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.18), mechanoreceptor and thermal receptor stimulation (SMD = -1.38, 95% CI -2.02 to -0.73) for intra-operative pain, and pre-emptive oral analgesics (SMD = -0.77, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.33) for reducing post-operative pain in children receiving routine dental care.

CONCLUSION

The GRADE results for these interventions were strong recommendation (IB) for their use, based on moderate evidence and their benefits far outweighing the harm, and they can be delivered readily with minimal training to reduce the pain experience of paediatric patients.

Ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in children

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Photobiomodulation therapy assisted orthodontic tooth movement: potential implications, challenges, and new perspectives

Over the past decade, dramatic progress has been made in dental research areas involving laser therapy. The photobiomodulatory effect of laser light regulates the behavior of periodontal tissues and promotes damaged tissues to heal faster. Additionally, photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT), a non-invasive treatment, when applied in orthodontics, contributes to alleviating pain and reducing inflammation induced by orthodontic forces, along with improving tissue healing processes. Moreover, PBMT is attracting more attention as a possible approach to prevent the incidence of orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) during orthodontic treatment (OT) due to its capacity to modulate inflammatory, apoptotic, and anti-antioxidant responses. However, a systematic review revealed that PBMT has only a moderate grade of evidence-based effectiveness during orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) in relation to OIIRR, casting doubt on its beneficial effects. In PBMT-assisted orthodontics, delivering sufficient energy to the tooth root to achieve optimal stimulation is challenging due to the exponential attenuation of light penetration in periodontal tissues. The penetration of light to the root surface is another crucial unknown factor. Both the penetration depth and distribution of light in periodontal tissues are unknown. Thus, advanced approaches specific to orthodontic application of PBMT need to be established to overcome these limitations. This review explores possibilities for improving the application and effectiveness of PBMT during OTM. The aim was to investigate the current evidence related to the underlying mechanisms of action of PBMT on various periodontal tissues and cells, with a special focus on immunomodulatory effects during OTM.

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.

Acupressure versus NSAID for relief of orthodontic pain : A randomized controlled clinical trial

AIM

To compare ibuprofen and acupressure for pain relief after insertion of elastomeric orthodontic separators.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized control clinical trial was conducted in an orthodontic clinic. A total of 75 orthodontic patients aged 12-16 years participating in the study were randomly allocated to receive either 400 mg of oral ibuprofen, applying acupressure therapy, or no pain-relief approach. Pain scores were recorded on visual analog scales (10 cm) over a week at different times (4, 10, 18, 24 h, and 1 week). The margin of equivalence was defined as 10 mm.

RESULTS

For all timepoints, the control group recorded the highest pain. For the ibuprofen and acupressure group, after 4 h, 18 h, and 1 week, no significant difference was noted. However, after 10 h, no significant difference in pain between the control and acupressure groups was noted and the ibuprofen group showed significantly lower pain. In the acupressure group, the highest pain was noted at 10 h. After this timepoint, pain progressively decreased with time and the lowest pain was noted after 1 week. In the control and ibuprofen groups, the highest pain was after 4 h, and then progressively decreased with time and the lowest pain was noted after 1 week.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in pain perception between participants using ibuprofen or acupressure and both groups recorded significantly lower pain than the control group at most of the observed timepoints. Results support the analgesic effect of the acupressure approach.

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.

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.

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.

Effects of high-frequency near infrared laser irradiation on experimental tooth movement-induced pain in rats

Discomfort and dull pain are known side effects of orthodontic treatment. Pain is expected to be reduced by near-infrared (NIR) lasers; however, the mechanism underlying effects of short-pulse NIR lasers in the oral and maxillofacial area remains unclear. This study aimed to examine the effects of high-frequency NIR diode laser irradiation on pain during experimental tooth movement (ETM) on 120 J. NIR laser with 910 nm wavelength, 45 W maximum output power, 300 mW average output power, and 200 ns pulse width (Lumix 2; (Lumix 2; Fisioline, Verduno CN, Italy) was used for the experiment. A nickel-titanium-closed coil was used to apply a 50-gf force between the maxillary left-side first molar and incisor in 7-week-old Sprague-Dawley rats (280-300 g) to induce ETM. We measured facial-grooming frequency and vacuous chewing movement (VCM) period between laser-irradiation and ETM groups. We performed immunofluorescent histochemistry analysis to quantify levels of Iba-1, astrocytes, and c-fos protein-like immunoreactivity (Fos-IR) in the trigeminal spinal nucleus caudalis (Vc). Compared with the ETM group, the laser irradiation group had significantly decreased facial-grooming frequency (P = 0.0036), VCM period (P = 0.043), Fos-IR (P = 0.0028), Iba-1 levels (P = 0.0069), and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) levels (P = 0.0071). High-frequency NIR diode laser irradiation appears to have significant analgesic effects on ETM-induced pain, which involve inhibiting neuronal activity, microglia, and astrocytes, and it inhibits c-fos, Iba-1, and GFAP expression, reducing ETM-induced pain in rats. High-frequency NIR diode laser application could be applied to reduce pain during orthodontic tooth movement.

Role of the general dental practitioner in managing the risks of orthodontic treatment

The aim of this article is to outline the potential risks in orthodontic treatment and the general dental practitioner's role in reducing and managing such risks. The success of orthodontic treatment largely depends on patient understanding of the risk/benefit implications of the orthodontic treatment and all of the potential consequences involved in such treatment. A perfect blend of good case selection, sound clinical judgement and, more importantly, a patient's clear understanding of the potential risks involved and the treatment implications help minimise and manage potential hazards that occur during the course of the treatment.

Comparative Analysis of Periodontal Pain According to the Type of Precision Orthodontic Appliances: Vestibular, Lingual and Aligners. A Prospective Clinical Study

The objective of this prospective clinical study was to analyze the pain (intensity, location and type) that patients presented after the placement of different types of orthodontic appliances: conventional, low friction, lingual and aligners. The sample consisted of 120 patients divided into four groups: conventional (CON), low friction (LF), lingual (LO) and aligners (INV). The participants were given the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (Ortho-SF-MPQ), where they had to record the pain intensity (no pain, mild, moderate or intense) and the periodontal location at different time points, from the first 4 h to 7 days after the start of treatment. In all the study groups, the most frequent location was both anterior arches, with maximum values between 56.7% (CON group at 24 h) and 30% (LO group at 4 h). The "whole mouth" and "complete lower arch" locations were indicated only by the patients in the lingual group. Regarding pain intensity, the patients reported a higher percentage of mild-moderate pain during the first 3 days of treatment (96.7% in LO at 4 h, 86.7% in CON, 83.3% in LF and 90% in INV at 24 h); later, the reported pain decreased to no pain/mild pain, especially in the lingual group, until reaching values close to zero at 7 days post-treatment. The most frequent type of pain was acute in the low friction and lingual groups (with maxima of 60% and 46.7% at 24 h, respectively). On the contrary, in the conventional (36.7% at 4 h) and Invisalign (40% at 24 h) groups, the sensitive type was the most frequent. There are differences regarding periodontal pain in its intensity, location and type according to the use of different orthodontic techniques.

Efficacy of Photobiomodulation Therapy for Orthodontic Pain Control Following the Placement of Elastomeric Separators: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction: Controlling pain in orthodontic patients has gained special attention. This study assessed the efficacy of photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) for pain control following the placement of elastomeric separators. Methods: This split-mouth single-blind randomized clinical trial evaluated 30 orthodontic patients who required posterior elastomeric separators. The two maxillary quadrants were randomized into the laser and control groups. In the laser quadrant, an 808 nm diode laser (400 mW, 15.60 J/cm² , 11 seconds, continuous-wave, contact mode) was irradiated to the cervical third of the maxillary first molar roots 24 hours prior to the placement of separators. The control quadrant received placebo radiation by a light-curing unit. The patients received the second laser cycle right before the placement of separators 24 hours later. The level of self-perceived pain was recorded at 0, 2, 6, 24, and 72 hours and 5 days after the intervention in the laser and control quadrants using a visual analog scale (VAS). Data were analyzed using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired-samples t test. Results: The trend of change in the pain score was similar in both groups. The pain score was significantly lower in the laser group than the control group at all-time points (P <0.05) except at time 0. The pain score increased in the first 6 hours and reached its maximum level in 24 hours in both groups. Conclusion: PBMT by an 808 nm diode laser can effectively decrease pain following the placement of elastomeric separators.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

Introduction:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

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.

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.

Effects of low-level laser therapy and mechanical vibration on orthodontic pain caused by initial archwire

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of mechanical vibration and low-level laser therapy on orthodontic pain after placement of the initial archwire.

METHODS

Sixty subjects with 3-6 mm maxillary dental crowding, a nonextraction fixed treatment plan, and no medical history were included in this study. The subjects were randomly divided into 3 groups, equally distributed by sex. In each subject, preadjusted edgewise appliances were placed in the maxillary arch from the left first molar to the right first molar, and a 0.014-inch round nickel-titanium archwire was fully engaged with elastomeric ties and cut at the end of first molar bondable tube. In group 1 (mean age 13.98 ± 2.68 y), mechanical vibration was performed 3 times: immediately, 24 hours, and 48 hours after engagement of the initial archwire. In group 2 (mean age 14.86 ± 2.06 y), low-level laser therapy was applied once: immediately after the insertion of the initial archwire. Group 3 (mean age 14.41 ± 1.78 y) served as the control group. Pain scores were determined with the use of a visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Although no statistically significant differences were found among the groups (P >0.05), the mean VAS scores for the mechanical vibration group were consistently lower than those of the control and low-level laser therapy groups at all measured time points.

CONCLUSIONS

The mechanical vibration group had lower, though nonsignificant, VAS scores for all measured time points. Additional clinical trials are recommended for more definitive conclusions.

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.

Effect of Drugs on Orthodontic Tooth Movement in Human Beings: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background:

Orthodontic tooth movement represents a series of events at both cellular and molecular levels which in turn stimulates inflammatory pathway to induce tooth movement. Some drugs taken by patients have a negative effect which can block this pathway, on the other hand, others may influence these events and reduce treatment time.

Search Methods:

A search strategy was implemented using both manual hand search and electronic databases, including Cochrane database of clinical trials, PubMed, ScienceDirect and Scopus. The risk of biased eligible studies to be included in the final analysis was assessed independently by two authors using Cochrane risk of bias tool.

Results:

A total of 491 articles were identified in both manual and electronic searches as well as by checking the reference lists of articles to be included in the study. After reviewing the titles, abstracts and full-text articles, only 8 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, and thus, were included in the final analysis. Six out of the 8 RCTs were assessed as of low quality. No statistical methods were employed to combine the studies due to the heterogeneities of the studies and the low level of evidence.

Conclusion:

Acetylsalicylic acid and ibuprofen reduced orthodontic tooth movement whereas paracetamol, Rofecoxib and tenoxicam had no impact on orthodontic tooth movement. Due to the low quality of the studies included, therefore to base our practice on scientific evidence, better-controlled RCTs are needed to investigate the impact of common medications on orthodontic tooth movement.

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.

Comparison of two analgesics used for pain relief after placement of orthodontic separators

Objective

The purpose of this study was to assess the possible effect of two analgesics: paracetamol (500 mg) and ibuprofen (400 mg) on pain and routine life of the patients after placement of orthodontic separators.

Methodology

Ninety patients aged 11–41 years undergoing fixed comprehensive orthodontic treatment requiring placement of different orthodontic separators participated in the study. Following placement of separators, the participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: paracetamol (500 mg) given every 6 h for 3 days, ibuprofen (400 mg) given every 8 h for 2 days and control group in which no analgesic was given. A questionnaire comprising of 7 questions was distributed to the participants and were asked to report their feeling of pain. The collected data were tabulated and the statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA, chi-square test, and t-test with a significance level of p < 0.05.

Results

In general, the level of pain was high for all groups in the first three days. Then it was gradually reduced until the 7th day of the study. Few patients reported feeling of pain during their sleep whereas a significant reduction of the pain was reported during eating and chewing after the 3rd day of separators. However, some participants felt continuous pain on the 1st and 2nd days and it was reduced gradually on the 3rd day until the 7th day following application of separators.

Conclusion

The patients prescribed ibuprofen did not report any problem with tooth movement along with significant reduction in pain as compared to paracetamol. Pain relief medication after placement of separators should be taken only if patient feels intolerable pain but not as routine practice.

Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study

BACKGROUND

The importance of sex and gender considerations in research is being increasingly recognized. Evidence indicates that sex and gender can influence intervention effectiveness. We assessed the extent to which sex/gender is reported and analyzed in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews.

METHODS

We screened all the systematic reviews in the Campbell Library (n = 137) and a sample of systematic reviews from 2016 to 2017 in the Cochrane Library (n = 674). We documented the frequency of sex/gender terms used in each section of the reviews.

RESULTS

We excluded 5 Cochrane reviews because they were withdrawn or published and updated within the same time period as well as 4 Campbell reviews and 114 Cochrane reviews which only included studies focused on a single sex. Our analysis includes 133 Campbell reviews and 555 Cochrane reviews. We assessed reporting of sex/gender considerations for each section of the systematic review (Abstract, Background, Methods, Results, Discussion). In the methods section, 83% of Cochrane reviews (95% CI 80-86%) and 51% of Campbell reviews (95% CI 42-59%) reported on sex/gender. In the results section, less than 30% of reviews reported on sex/gender. Of these, 37% (95% CI 29-45%) of Campbell and 75% (95% CI 68-82%) of Cochrane reviews provided a descriptive report of sex/gender and 63% (95% CI 55-71%) of Campbell reviews and 25% (95% CI 18-32%) of Cochrane reviews reported analytic approaches for exploring sex/gender, such as subgroup analyses, exploring heterogeneity, or presenting disaggregated data by sex/gender.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that sex/gender reporting in Campbell and Cochrane reviews is inadequate.

Effect of a 5% naproxen patch on reducing pain caused by separators prior to fixed orthodontic treatment

Background

The pain involved in orthodontic treatments may involve inflammatory processes. This study evaluated the effect of using a naproxen patch for pain reduction in the separating stage of fixed orthodontic treatment.

Methods

In this double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial of 35 orthodontic patients (age: 14–19 years) who had pain during separator placement, each patient randomly placed naproxen and placebo patches in the first permanent molar region, in opposite quadrants of the same jaw. Patches were replaced every 8 hours until 3 days after separator placement. Patients recorded their pain perception at 2, 6, and 24 hours, and on days 2 (6 PM), 3 (10 AM and 6 PM), and 7 (10 AM and 6 PM), using a visual analog scale. Mean pain scores were compared for the two patches, and effects of sex and age thereon determined.

Results

Data from 29 patients (21 girls, eight boys) were analyzed. Mean pain values decreased over time for both patches (P < 0.001). Recorded pain did not differ significantly between the sexes (P = 0.059) or between those aged <16 and those ≥16 years (P = 0.106). Mean pain recorded with naproxen patches was statistically significantly less than that with placebo patches at all time points (P = 0.004).

Conclusion

The naproxen patch was more efficient than the placebo patch for reducing pain at all time points. The highest pain score was recorded at 6 hours, and the least pain was recorded at the 7^th day after separator placement.

Optimal management of orthodontic pain

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

Pain experience in adults undergoing treatment: A longitudinal evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the intensity and duration of pain experience in adults over the initial three visits of fixed appliance-based orthodontic treatment. A secondary objective was to assess the relationship between pain experience and analgesic use, dental irregularity, gender, and age.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective longitudinal study design was adopted. Fifty-eight adults undergoing fixed appliance treatment in five orthodontic practices recorded pain experience at four time points (4 hours, 24 hours, 3 days, and 7 days) following the initial bond-up appointment (T0) and first (T1) and second (T2) routine follow-up adjustment appointments using a visual analogue scale. In addition, subjects recorded the dosage and frequency of analgesic use.

RESULTS

A slightly greater proportion of women (57%) were recruited, with a mean sample age of 34.69 (SD 12.11) years. Peak pain was experienced between 24 hours and 3 days following appliance placement (T0) and subsequent adjustments (T1 and T2). The highest mean pain score arose at T0 followed by T2 and T1 adjustments, with the difference between pain levels at these appointment intervals being statistically significant ( P < .001). The use of analgesics following each appointment mirrored pain experience, with pain score, appointment, and time point all being significant predictors of analgesic consumption. The level of dental irregularity, gender, or age did not predict pain levels reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Adults undergoing fixed orthodontic therapy should be advised that they are most likely to experience increased levels of pain for 1 to 3 days following placement of their appliance and subsequent adjustment visits.

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.

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.

The effect of a lidocaine/prilocaine topical anesthetic on pain and discomfort associated with orthodontic elastomeric separator placement

Background

The initial placement of orthodontic elastomeric separators can be uncomfortable and painful. Therefore, it is important to relieve this disturbing sensation to create a discomfort or pain-free orthodontic visit. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a lidocaine/prilocaine topical anesthetic on pain and discomfort associated with the placement of orthodontic elastomeric separators.

Methods

Fifty subjects aging between 20–35 years were included in this study. In the maxillary arch, a lidocaine/prilocaine topical anesthetic was placed around the ginigval margins of the premolar and molar on side. On the other side, a placebo agent was placed around the ginigval margins of the premolar and molar. After two minutes, an elastomeric separator was placed between the premolar and molar on both sides. The subjects were then asked to report their findings on a Verbal Scale and a Visual Analogue Scale every second minute for a period of 10 min. The subjects were also given a questionnaire to evaluate the overall impression on the topical anesthetic use.

Results

The overall mean discomfort/pain score was found to be significantly lower (p < 0.001) with the topical anesthetic than with the placebo. Repeated measures ANOVA with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction determined that mean pain scores were statistically significantly low with the 10-min time duration (F_(1.54,42.2) = 40.7, p = 0.001), with an estimated grand mean (8.37, 95% CI 6.75–9.98). The questionnaire responses revealed that 87% of the subjects reported an overall satisfaction and agreement with the topical anesthetic than with the placebo or no difference (13%) after the initial separator placement.

Conclusions

The discomfort and pain resulting from the initial placement of orthodontic elastomeric separators can be significantly reduced with the lidocaine/prilocaine topical anesthetic.

Pain reduced by low-level laser therapy during use of orthodontic separators in early mixed dentition

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this work was to investigate whether low-level laser therapy (LLLT) applied at a defined distance from the gingiva has a pain-reducing effect in young patients undergoing orthodontic separation during the early mixed-dentition stage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 40 children in early mixed dentition (mean age 8.05 years) who required separation of molars were included. The study comprised a group of 20 patients whose treatment included laser application on the day of separation and a control group of 20 patients not receiving LLLT. All patients recorded their maximum pain intensities on the day of separation (day 1) and on the following 4 days.

RESULTS

Compared to the control group, pain perception was significantly reduced (p < 0.05) in the LLLT group on day 1 and continued to be reduced on day 2. Equivalent pain levels were recorded in both groups on days 3-5.

CONCLUSION

Given our findings of a pain-reducing effect in young patients undergoing orthodontic separation during the early mixed-dentition stage, LLLT is an interesting alternative option of providing analgesia even in very young patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Association among pain, masticatory performance, and proinflammatory cytokines in crevicular fluid during orthodontic treatment

INTRODUCTION

Orthodontic patients usually complain about masticatory limitations associated with the activation of fixed appliances. The aim of this investigation was to evaluate whether orthodontic pain reflects differences in the objective evaluation of mastication and in the levels of proinflammatory cytokines in the crevicular fluid of patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.

METHODS

Twenty patients with malocclusions requiring orthodontic treatment were included in this prospective study. Their pain experience, masticatory performance, and levels of interleukin 1-beta and prostaglandin E2 in crevicular fluid were evaluated at 3 times: before bracket placement, 24 hours after archwire placement, and 30 days after the initial appointment. All variables were compared with those of a control group of 25 subjects with normal occlusion.

RESULTS

The masticatory performance of the patients was significantly reduced at 24 hours after bracket placement, the period in which they reported higher values of pain and had higher levels of interleukin 1-beta. The levels of prostaglandin E2 did not change in the periods evaluated, and there were no correlations between the levels of cytokines and the functional limitations observed. The only significant correlation was between pain and decreased masticatory performance.

CONCLUSIONS

The masticatory performance of orthodontic patients is significantly reduced only during the period of greatest pain. However, these alterations did not correlate with any measurement of interleukin 1-beta or prostaglandin E2 in the crevicular fluid, suggesting that these solitary measurements are inadequate to predict the temporary pain and masticatory limitations experienced by patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.

Insight into orthodontic appliance induced pain: Mechanism, duration and management

Most of the orthodontic patients experience pain during treatment and this significantly influences their attitudes and the approach towards treatment. A number of factors that influence pain response include age, gender, personal pain threshold, mood and stress level of the person, cultural differences and types of orthodontic treatment. Pain is a often overlooked subject by orthodontists, it is nevertheless important to understand the source and mechanism of the pain that occurs during treatment, as well as the methods for managing and controlling this pain. This review attempts to overview the mechanism, duration and current management strategies of orthodontic treatment.

A randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of bite wafer and low level laser therapy in reducing pain following initial arch wire placement

Background and aims: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ibuprofen, bite wafer and low power red and infrared lasers in orthodontic pain management. Subjects and methods: One hundred subjects were randomly assigned to 5 groups of 20 each. The patients in each group received one of the following treatments after the placement of fixed orthodontic appliances: 1. placebo medication, 2. ibuprofen, 3. bite wafer, 4. irradiation from a low level red laser (LLRL; 660 nm, 200 mW, 1 J/point, 6 points), 5. irradiation from a low level infrared laser (LLIL; 810 nm, 200 mW, 1 J/point, 6 points). A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to record pain intensity while chewing, biting, fitting front teeth, and fitting back teeth at 2 hours, 6 hours, bedtime, 24 hours, 2 days, 3 days and 7 days following arch wire placement. Results: Significant between-group differences were found in pain at chewing, biting, fitting front teeth and fitting back teeth at all time points (p<0.001). Generally, VAS scores in the LLIL, ibuprofen and bite wafer groups were close to each other and significantly lower than those in the LLRL and control groups (p<0.05), which showed comparable pain level at most intervals. The infrared laser group (LLIL) showed significantly lower pain than all other groups at some points over the experiment (p<0.05). Conclusions: A single irradiation from a low level infrared laser proved to be the best strategy for orthodontic pain control. Alternatively, chewing on a bite wafer could be recommended. These methods should be considered as suitable alternatives for ibuprofen in orthodontic patients.

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

Controlling pain during orthodontic fixed appliance therapy with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID): a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Despite all the technological advances in orthodontics, orthodontic treatment still seems to involve some degree of discomfort and/or pain. Pain control during orthodontic therapy is of great concern to both orthodontists and patients. However, there has been limited research into controlling such pain.

AIMS

The purpose of this work was to assess patient-perceived pain following fixed orthodontic treatment and to evaluate the comparative analgesic efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for controlling pain.

METHODS

A total of 45 patients about to undergo fixed appliance orthodontic treatment were enrolled in this double-blind prospective study. Patients were evenly and randomly distributed in a blinded manner to one of three groups as follows: paracetamol/acetaminophen 500 mg thrice daily; placebo in the form of empty capsules; and etoricoxib 60 mg once daily. Drug administration began 1 h before initiating the bonding procedure and archwire placement, and given until the day 3. The pain perceived was recorded by the patients on a linear and graded Visual Analogue Scale at time intervals of 2 h after insertion of the appliance; 6 h thereafter and again at nighttime of the same day of the appointment; 24 h later and on the 2nd day at nighttime; 48 h after the appointment and on day 3 at nighttime.

RESULTS

Our results revealed that moderately intense pain is associated with routine orthodontic treatment, and that the amount of pain individuals perceive varies widely. We observed statistically significant differences in the pain control among the three groups, and that etoricoxib 60 mg proved most efficient.

CONCLUSION

Etoricoxib 60 mg is highly efficacious for controlling pain during fixed orthodontic appliance therapy.

Low-level laser therapy for orthodontic pain: a systematic review

This review aimed to evaluate the clinical outcome of different lasers management on orthodontic pain. Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2014) and MEDLINE (1966-2014.7) were searched to collect randomized controlled trials on lasers for orthodontic pain. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were systematically evaluated. The Cochrane Collaboration tools RevMan5.1.7 and GRADEpro 3.6 were used in this systematic review and meta-analysis. As a result, 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying on low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for orthodontic pain control were included. Meta-analysis and risk of bias assessment were implemented using RevMan5.1.7, and level of evidence assessments was measured by GRADEpro 3.6. In the outcome of the score of the most painful day, the comparison of laser versus placebo (pain associated with tooth movement) demonstrated that LLLT reduced the pain score significantly compared with placebo groups (MD = -4.39, 95% CI range -5.9--2.88, P < 0.00001). In the same way, the most painful day was significantly brought forward in laser versus control group (MD = -0.42, 95% CI range -0.74--0.10, P = 0.009). Furthermore, the outcome of the end of pain day showed a trend of pain termination earlier in laser versus control and placebo groups, but without statistical significance (MD = -1.37, 95% CI range -3.37-0.64, P = 0.18 and MD = -1.04, 95% CI range -4.22-2.15, P = 0.52). However, for the reason of downgrade factors, all the GRADE level of evidences of eight comparisons for three outcomes showed a very low quality. Therefore, for the methodological shortcomings and risk of bias of RCTs included, insufficient evidence was submitted to judge whether LLLT was effective in relieving orthodontic pain. Further and more perfect researches should be done in order to recommend LLLT as a routine method for orthodontic pain.

The efficacy of different pre- and post-operative analgesics in the management of pain after orthodontic separator placement: A randomized clinical trial

Introduction:

Pain-free treatment to the patients is considered as an important treatment objective for orthodontic health care providers. However, many orthodontists underestimate the degree of pain experienced by the patients. Hence, this study was conducted as a randomized, double-blinded clinical trial with the following objectives.

Objective:

To study the pain characteristics after separator placement; to compare the efficacy of various commonly used analgesics in pain management and to determine the efficacy of pre- and post-operative analgesics in pain management.

Subjects and Methods:

Data were collected from 154 patients (77 males and 77 females, age group of 14-21 years, with mean age of 18.8 years) who reported to Department of Orthodontics. Patients were randomly divided in to four groups. Group 1: Paracetamol 650 mg, Group 2: Ibuprofen 400 mg, Group 3: Aspirin 300 mg, Group 4: Placebo and the study were conducted as a randomized, double-blinded clinical trial. The patients were instructed to take two tablets, one tablet 1 h before separator placement, and the other one after 6 h. The pain evaluations were made by the patients, when teeth not touching (TNT), biting back teeth together, chewing food (CF) using a 100-mm visual analogue scale for 7 days after separator placement. Patients were advised to record the severity of pain.

Results:

Group 3 (Aspirin 300 mg) showed lowest pain values, followed by Group 2 (ibuprofen 400 mg), and Group 1 (paracetamol 650 mg). All NSAID's achieved good pain control compared to Group 4 (placebo), where the intensity pain was maximum.

Conclusion:

Pre- and post-operative analgesics were found to be more effective in controlling orthodontic pain, after separator placement at all-time intervals.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

AIM

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effect of frequent laser irradiation on orthodontic pain. A single-blind randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on perception of pain after separator placement and compare it with perceptions of control and placebo groups using a frequent irradiation protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-eight patients were randomly allocated to a laser group, a light-emitting diode (LED) placebo group, or a control group. Elastomeric separators were placed on the first molars. In the laser and LED groups, first molars were irradiated for 30 seconds every 12 hours for 1 week using a portable device. Pain was marked on a visual analog scale at predetermined intervals. Repeated measure analysis of variance was performed for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The pain scores of the laser group were significantly lower than those of the control group up to 1 day. The pain scores in the LED group were not significantly different from those of the laser group during the first 6 hours. After that point, the pain scores of the LED group were not significantly different from those of the control.

CONCLUSIONS

Frequent LLLT decreased the perception of pain to a nonsignificant level throughout the week after separator placement, compared with pain perception in the placebo and control groups. Therefore, LLLT might be an effective method of reducing orthodontic pain.

The pain management in orthodontics

Pain and discomfort are the frequent side-effects of the orthodontic therapy with fixed appliances. The people who experience orthodontic pain are likely to self-medicate with nonprescription pain relievers before seeing the dentist. It is imperative for an orthodontist to address questions that might arise in a clinical setting from the viewpoint of the clinicians and the patients/parents. This article will provide an overview of the current management strategies which are employed for alleviating orthodontic pain.