Evaluation of pain intensity in patients treated with aligners and conventional fixed appliances: Randomized clinical trial

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Orthodontic Treatment for Mild Crowding With Modified Aligner Appliance With Nickel-Titanium Springs: A Prospective Cohort Study

Background and objectives A modified aligner appliance with nickel-titanium springs (MAA) is a relatively new appliance that has not received extensive attention in orthodontics. This study evaluated the patient-reported outcomes when orthodontic treatment was provided using a modified aligner appliance to treat mild lower incisor crowding. Materials and methods This prospective cohort study consisted of 42 patients (11 males and 31 females; mean age 21.69 ± 2.56 years) with mild crowding. Twenty-one patients were treated using a modified aligner with nickel-titanium springs, while the remaining patients were treated with a conventional fixed orthodontic appliance (FA). Patient responses regarding pain, discomfort, and difficulty in chewing, swallowing, and speaking were recorded using a visual analog scale (VAS) at six assessment times: 24 hours (T1), two days (T2), three days (T3), two weeks (T4), one month (T5), and two months (T6) after appliance application. Results The mean perceived pain and discomfort levels were generally lower in the traditional fixed appliance (FA) group than the modified aligner appliance with nickel-titanium springs group at most assessment times. However, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups. Chewing difficulty levels were similar between the two groups with no substantial differences. Swallowing and speech difficulty were significantly higher in the MAA group compared to the FA group during the first two days of treatment (P < 0.008). Conclusions Patients using both types of orthodontic appliances experienced temporary discomfort, including pain and difficulty chewing. While the modified aligners appliance with nickel-titanium springs caused additional challenges with swallowing and speaking, these issues were resolved over time, allowing patients to adjust to the treatment.

Impact of orthodontic treatment with aligners on the oral health-related quality of life of patients with trisomy 21

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of treatment with orthodontic aligners (OA) on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in patients with trisomy 21 (T21) compared to non-syndromic patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The sample consisted of 30 patients, both sexes, aged between 11 and 35 years, divided into two groups: T21 (n = 10, patients with T21, treated prospectively) and CONTROL (n = 20, control group, non-syndromic patients, from the Orthodontic Laboratory of UNOPAR). In both groups, patients were treated with Invisalign orthodontic aligners (Align Technology), following the same treatment parameters. Participants, assisted by their caregivers, when necessary, answered Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) instrument and the patient's guardians answered the Oral Health Scale for People with Down's syndrome (OHDS) instrument, before (T0) and after 30 (T1), 180 (T2), and 365 (T3) days from the start of treatment. Friedman tests with Bonferroni correction and Mann-Whitney tests were used (p < .05).

RESULTS

For the OHDS instrument, it was observed that for the eating and communication domains and an overall score, the treatment with OA positively impacted the lives of T21 patients (p < .05). Regarding the OHIP-14 instrument, the intragroup evaluation showed that in the CONTROL group, there was no significant difference between the evaluated times; while for the T21 group, there was a significant positive impact (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

The results showed that the treatment with aligners positively impacted the OHRQoL of T21 patients, and these results were perceived by caregivers, mainly in relation to issues related to eating and communication.

Bibliometric and visualized analysis of randomized controlled trials in orthodontics between 1991 and 2022

INTRODUCTION

In many evidence-based approaches to orthodontic research, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent authoritative evidence to identify rational therapeutics. This study aimed to perform mappings of bibliometric networks on orthodontic RCTs and summarize visual characteristics between 1991 and 2022.

METHODS

The articles were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection in October 2022 without an initial time limit. Only orthodontic RCTs were eligible. Some bibliometric tools (HistCite, VOSviewer, SCImago Graphica, and CiteSpace) were applied for visualized analysis. Data such as geography, productive institutions, hot articles, journals, authors, references, and keywords were extracted and summarized for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1122 orthodontic RCTs were searched. A total of 3841 authors from 1157 institutions in 65 countries published orthodontic RCTs. The United States (149) was the most prolific country, and the University of Sao Paulo (35) was the most productive institution. The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (206) was the most popular journal for scholars. The visualization results of keyword co-occurrence identified 5 clusters: (1) tooth movement and auxiliary measures, (2) appliances and oral health, (3) orthodontic discomfort and symptomatic therapy, (4) periodontal disease in orthodontics and health maintenance, and (5) retention and relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 31 years, publications and citations on orthodontic RCTs from the Web of Science Core Collection have increased notably across many countries, authors, and institutions. Recently, there has been a significant increase in the attention to orthodontic RCTs that focus on accelerating tooth movement.

Comparison of pain intensity and impacts on oral health-related quality of life between orthodontic patients treated with clear aligners and fixed appliances: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the pain intensity and impacts on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) between orthodontic patients treated with clear aligners (CAs) and fixed appliances (FAs).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted up to December 2022 using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) comparing pain intensity or OHRQoL between patients treated with CAs and FAs were included. The risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB tool 2.0 and ROBINS-I tool for RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. Further, meta-analyses were separately conducted for each included study using the total oral health impact profile (OHIP)-14 and visual analog scale (VAS) scores to evaluate OHRQoL and pain intensity, respectively.

RESULTS

Overall, 12 studies (5 RCTs and 7 non-RCTs) were included in the study. Subgroup analyses conducted according to the total OHIP-14 scores revealed that patients treated with CAs had higher OHRQoL at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months of the treatment. Meanwhile, subgroup analyses conducted according to the VAS scores revealed that pain levels were lower in the CA group only at 3 and 4 days of the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with clear aligners had higher OHRQoL than those treated with fixed appliances during orthodontic treatment. However, OHRQoL appeared to be similar between the two groups at the end of the treatment. Moreover, patients treated with clear aligners experienced lesser pain than those treated with fixed appliances on the third and fourth day after the initial treatment. The difference in pain intensity between the two treatment modalities was not noted at other time points.

Attachments for the Orthodontic Aligner Treatment-State of the Art-A Comprehensive Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

In recent years the burden of aligner treatment has been growing. However, the sole use of aligners is characterized by limitations; thus attachments are bonded to the teeth to improve aligner retention and tooth movement. Nevertheless, it is often still a challenge to clinically achieve the planned movement. Thus, the aim of this study is to discuss the evidence of the shape, placement and bonding of composite attachments.

METHODS

A query was carried out in six databases on 10 December 2022 using the search string ("orthodontics" OR "malocclusion" OR "Tooth movement techniques AND ("aligner*" OR "thermoformed splints" OR "invisible splint*" AND ("attachment*" OR "accessor*" OR "auxill*" AND "position*").

RESULTS

There were 209 potential articles identified. Finally, twenty-six articles were included. Four referred to attachment bonding, and twenty-two comprised the influence of composite attachment on movement efficacy. Quality assessment tools were used according to the study type.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of attachments significantly improves the expression of orthodontic movement and aligner retention. It is possible to indicate sites on the teeth where attachments have a better effect on tooth movement and to assess which attachments facilitate movement. The research received no external funding. The PROSPERO database number is CRD42022383276.

Orthodontic pain in maxilla and mandible during the first week of orthodontic treatment

Background/Aim: This investigation aimed to evaluate the intensity of self-reported pain and frequency of self-medication with analgesics during the initial phase of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and to compare possible differences between the maxillary and mandibular teeth. Material and Methods: In this observational clinical trial 68 patients had similar orthodontic forces (the same bracket-slot and prescription, archwire size and material, and treatment plan) applied on maxillary and mandibular teeth. The patients recorded pain intensity and use of analgesics for the first seven days of treatment. Comparisons between maxillary and mandibular teeth regarding the pain intensity and self-medication frequency were performed by Wilcoxson Signed Ranks Test and McNamara Test for Matched Pairs, respectively. Results: The patients reported moderate pain in both jaws which decreased significantly with each day of treatment. Still, during the initial three days of treatment intensity of pain for maxillary teeth was significantly lower compared to the mandibular teeth. Patients reported analgesics consumption for both jaws, without a statistically significant difference between them. Conclusions: The patients have reported orthodontic pain of higher intensity in the mandibular arch compared to the maxillary arch during the initial phase of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances.

Pain and removal force associated with bracket debonding: a clinical study

Objective:

Pain is a problem during bracket removal, and more comfortable treatment is needed. This study examined the association of pain with the removal force required for ceramic brackets, compared with metal and plastic brackets, to determine which removal method resulted in less pain and discomfort.

Methodology:

81 subjects (mean age, 25.1 years; 25 males and 56 females) were enrolled, from whom 1,235 brackets (407 ceramic, 432 plastic, and 396 metal) were removed. Measured teeth were distinguished at six segments. Pain was measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS) during the removal of each bracket. An additional grip was placed on the grips of debonding pliers with right-angled beaks; a mini loading cell sensor pinched by the grips was used to measure removal force during debonding. VAS and force values were statistically analyzed. The Kruskal–Wallis test followed by the Mann–Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction were performed for multiple comparisons; multiple regression analysis was also performed.

Results:

Forces in the upper and lower anterior segments were significantly smaller (p<0.05) than those in the other segments. Pain tended to be greater in the upper and lower anterior segments than in the posterior segments. In all segments, the removal force was greater for metal brackets than for plastic or ceramic brackets. Ceramic brackets caused significantly greater pain than plastic brackets for the upper and lower anterior segments. Debonding force was involved in the brackets, following adjustments for pain, upper left segment, age, and sex.

Conclusions

Pain and discomfort are likely to occur during bracket debonding.

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.