Prediction of pain in orthodontic patients based on preoperative pain assessment

Comparative analysis of periodontal pain and quality of life in patients with fixed multibracket appliances and aligners (Invisalign®): longitudinal clinical study

BACKGROUNDS

The aim of this longitudinal clinical study is to analyse and compare according to location, degree and type, the pain presented by patients during their first year of treatment, as well as the quality of oral life after the placement of two types of orthodontic appliances: conventional brackets and removable Invisalign ® aligners.

METHODS

The sample consisted of 140 patients grouped into 2 study groups of 70 patients each. The first group (brackets group- BG), with fixed multibracket appliances, using the MBT technique and a 0.022" slot. The second group (invisaling group- IG), in treatment with removable aligners (IG), using the Invisalign ® system. They were providen with a questionnare where they had to record the degree (mild, moderate or intense), the type and location of the pain monthly during the first year of treatment. The second form was the Spanish version of the OHIP-14, oral quality of life questionnaire, which was provided the twelfth month after the start of treatment.

RESULTS

In both groups, we found that the most frequent location of pain occurred during the first phase: mandibular for the IG group and maxillary in the BG group. Throughout the whole analysis, the intensity was mild-moderate with lower values in the conventional brackets' group. The BG group reported acute pain while the IG group reported sensitive pain during the first month; later both reported sensitive pain.

CONCLUSIONS

There are differences in terms of periodontal pain in its degree, location, and type according to the different orthodontic techniques used.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was approved by the bioethics committee of the University of Salamanca (USAL_20/516).

Orthodontic care in orthodontic patients during the COVID-2019 pandemic: emergency, emergency response and orthodontic treatment preference

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to investigate the characteristics of emergencies and the requirement for emergency treatment after the suspension of orthodontic appointments. The attitude towards orthodontic treatment preference was evaluated as well, including receiving orthodontic treatment and the preference for orthodontic appliances.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

An electronic questionnaire was distributed to the patients, including 4 sections: Section 1 - demographic and basic information; Section 2 - the characteristics of emergencies and emergency treatment requirements; Section 3 - the NRS-11 for pain and Manchester Orofacial Pain Disability Scale used to evaluate the intensity of orofacial pain and disability; and Section 4 - attitudes towards receiving orthodontic treatment and appliance preference. Descriptive statistics, Pearson's chi-square test, Wilcoxon's rank-sum test and stepwise generalized linear model (GLM) were performed with significance set at P < 0.05.

RESULT

Most participants' (91.61%) follow-up appointments were suspended. The emergency rate and emergency treatment requirements were not different between the fixed appliance (FA) and clear aligner (CA) groups. Patients who reported emergencies (P < 0.01) in the FA group (P < 0.05) and some emergencies in the FA (P < 0.05) suffered worse pain and disability. More FA participants preferred alternative appliances (P < 0.05) due to pain and disability (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

FA patients' emergencies caused worse pain and disability when orthodontic appointments were suspended. Pain and disability were not the causes of emergency treatment requirements. The CA group seemed to show a tendency towards orthodontic appliance preference, which was an ideal modality to weather the epidemic, combined with telemedicine.

Impact of delayed orthodontic care during COVID-19 pandemic: Emergency, disability, and pain

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of clinical closure and delayed orthodontic care delivery in terms of types of emergencies, pain intensity, and disability experienced by orthodontic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

This was a descriptive cross-sectional study using an electronic survey that was distributed to orthodontic patients who were not seen in clinic for 2 to 3 months due to clinic closure. The survey included demographics, types of orthodontic emergencies, Numerical Rating Scale, and Manchester Orofacial Pain Disability Scale.

RESULTS

There were a total of 150 respondents with mean age of 20 years; 57.33% were female patients. The most common reported orthodontic emergencies were poking wire 30%, debonded brackets 27.3%, bad odor 24%, sharp ligature tie 20%, inflammation and bleeding 9.3%, ulcer 8.7%, and problematic palatal device 8%. Pain was significantly associated with poking wire (P < 0.001), sharp ligature tie (P < 0.01), ulcer (P < 0.05), and problematic palatal device (P < 0.01). Poking wire, sharp ligature tie, and problematic palatal device were found to be significant predictors of pain intensity. Median pain intensity was 3, similar to the median disability score. There was a significant association between pain intensity and disability score (P < 0.01). With each unit increase in pain intensity, the disability score increased by 1.18.

CONCLUSIONS

Delay in receiving orthodontic care could result in an orthodontic emergency, yet pain and disability resulting from these events are minimal. The decision to resume clinical service should be evaluated considering risks and benefits in case of the pandemic. Further studies are required.

Comparison of the Perception of Pain during Fixed Orthodontic Treatment with Metal and Ceramic Brackets

Introduction:

Pain is experienced by patients during various fixed orthodontic procedures such as placement of separators, insertion of arch wire and its activations, orthopedic appliances such as headgear, and debonding of the appliance. This study was formulated with the background that the level of pain sensation differs between conventional metal and ceramic brackets, arch wire being the same.

Materials and Methods:

The sample comprised 40 patients. The patients were separated into two groups: Group A (metal brackets) and Group B (ceramic brackets). In Group A, the brackets were bonded with 0.022” conventional stainless steel brackets (Unitek Gemini, 3M, Monrovia, California). In Group B, the brackets were bonded with ceramic brackets (Unitek Gemini Clear Brackets, 3M, Monrovia, California). The bonding of the brackets was carried out according to the conventional etching, priming, and curing technique. A 0.016” NiTi (nickel titanium) arch wire was used as the first arch wire. The intensity of pain was documented in a figure containing two 100-mm visual analog scales (VASs).

Results:

The level of pain reduced in intensity in due course. During 1 month, VAS scores increased at the end of day 1 (24 h) for the metal and ceramic group. The pain then decreased for up to 5 days. The average pain intensity reached 4.44 in the ceramic group, whereas it was 2.7 in the metal group for the upper anterior region. It decreased up to 1 in the ceramic and 0.22 in the metal group.

Conclusion:

Patients bonded with ceramic brackets experienced a higher and more severe pain of longer duration than individuals treated with conventional brackets.

Methodologies in Orthodontic Pain Management: A Review

Introduction:

Patients experience pain and discomfort during active orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Pain is considered a subjective response to noxious stimuli. It can vary from person to person and is influenced by certain factors such as age, gender, previous pain experiences, stress or anxiety, and type of appliance.

Objective:

The objective of this literature review was to discuss conventional versus recently introduced treatment modalities used in pain management for orthodontic patients.

Discussion:

According to the reviewed articles, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods were introduced in orthodontic pain management. However, orthodontists must use their best professional judgment to assess each case individually and select an appropriate treatment modality based on pain threshold level of an individual.

Conclusion:

Nevertheless, further investigations are required in this field.

The Cold Pressor Test as a Predictor of Prolonged Postoperative Pain, a Prospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Presently, it is difficult to predict which patients are at increased risk of ongoing pain problems postoperatively. This study followed a group of patients from the week before their operation until 3 months after it, to identify potential risk variables.

METHODS

Fifty-four patients undergoing moderate-major gynaecological surgery at Christchurch Women's Hospital were recruited and assessed preoperatively over an 11-week period. At this initial assessment, participants were subjected to a cold pressor test (CPT). Telephonic follow-up was conducted at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively, to determine pain status. Information regarding the type of operation and surgical approach was collected from hospital records.

RESULTS

Pain threshold (time taken to report the onset of pain), as measured by the CPT, was significantly predictive of prolonged pain outcomes (area under the curve = 0.80, 95 % CI 0.66, 0.95). Pain tolerance (total time taken to end the CPT voluntarily) was similarly predictive but non-significant (area under the curve = 0.69, 95 % CI 0.47, 0.90).

CONCLUSION

The preoperative cold pressor test shows some promise for predicting ongoing postoperative pain. However, more research is needed to determine the clinical significance of these findings in larger samples and how they could be incorporated into clinical practice.