A multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare a self-ligating bracket with a conventional bracket in a UK population: Part 2: Pain perception

Self-reported pain during different phases of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliance: A multi-centre randomized controlled trial in adolescents with crowding

OBJECTIVES

To compare self-reported pain levels across various treatment phases using passive self-ligating (Damon) and conventional (Victory) standardized fixed appliance systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adolescents (12-17 years old) with crowding and displaced teeth, planned for non-extraction treatment, were recruited from four orthodontic clinics. They were randomized into stratified blocks (1:1 ratio) using concealed allocation to receive Damon Q™ (34 boys, 28 girls) or Victory™ (39 boys, 31 girls). Pain and analgesic intake were assessed on seven different occasions with validated self-report questionnaires using a 10-grade scale.

RESULTS

Of the 132 patients included, six were lost to follow up. Clinically relevant mean pain scores (≥4) were registered in both groups after bonding upper and lower arches and after insertion of 0.019 × 0.025 stainless steel archwire. The highest mean scores were reported on day two after bonding the upper arch (Damon 5.96, Victory 7.18, P = .011). In both groups, at least 40% reported taking analgesics during various treatment phases. The Damon group reported a lower intake of analgesics on days one and two (P = .042 and .037) after treatment initiation. In the entire sample, boys reported significantly higher mean pain scores than girls on the second and third days after bonding (P = .008 and .026, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower pain levels were reported from the Damon group after bonding. In general, boys reported higher pain than girls did. Clinicians and adolescents need to be aware that clinically relevant pain levels can be expected not only after bonding but also in later phases.

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.

The Use of Questionnaires in Pain Assessment during Orthodontic Treatments: A Narrative Review

Pain is a complex multidimensional feeling combined with sensorial and emotional features. The majority of patients undergoing orthodontic treatment report various degrees of pain, which is perceived as widely variable between individuals, even when the stimulus is the same. Orthodontic pain is considered the main cause of poor-quality outcomes, patients' dissatisfaction, and lack of collaboration up to the interruption of therapy. A deep understanding of pain and how it influences a patient's daily life is fundamental to establishing proper therapeutic procedures and obtaining the correct collaboration. Because of its multifaced and subjective nature, pain is a difficult dimension to measure. The use of questionnaires and their relative rating scales is actually considered the gold standard for pain assessment. Choosing the most appropriate instrument for recording self-reported pain depends on a patient's age and cognitive abilities. Although several such scales have been proposed, and a lot of them are applied, it remains uncertain which of these tools represents the standard and performs the most precise, universal, and predictable task. This review aims to give an overview of the aspects which describe pain, specifically the pain experienced during orthodontic treatment, the main tool to assess self-perceived pain in a better and more efficient way, the different indications for each of them, and their correlated advantages or disadvantages.

Relationship between oral health impacts and personality profiles among orthodontic patients treated with Invisalign clear aligners

This within subject clinical experiment assessed oral health impacts before and after Invisalign orthodontic treatment and their relationships with personality characteristics. 50 patients (26 females and 24 males; mean age = 27.62 ± 8.25 years, SE = 1.17, 95% CI = 24.71–29.89 years) were assessed before and after treatment with Invisalign orthodontic treatment. Treatment clinical success was evaluated according defined clinical guidelines. Oral health impacts before and after Invisalign orthodontic treatment were measured via the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP). Personality features were measured via the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Probability of α = .05 was utilized to identify significant findings. Females scored less OHIP scores after treatment (had less negative impacts) in comparison to baseline OHIP scores (t = 3.782, df = 25, P = .001, 95% CI of mean difference = 2.750–9.327). Among males, openness scores (R² = .911, B = 5.235, 95% CI for B = 0.062–10.407, t = 2.601, P = .048) were able to predict OHIP scores before treatment; meanwhile, extraversion (R² = .959, B = − 8.224, 95% CI for B = − 14.605–1.843, t = − 3.313, P = .021), openness (R² = .959, B = 21.795, 95% CI for B = 10.737–32.853, t = 5.067, P = .004), and conscientiousness (R² = .959, B = 10.293, 95% CI for B = 4.796–15.790, t = 4.813, P = .005) scores were useful to predict OHIP scores after treatment (R² = .959, P < .05). NEO-FFI scores were not useful to predict OHIP scores before or after treatment among females (P > .05). These findings demonstrate that oral health impacts of Invisalign orthodontic treatment and personality profiles contribution to oral health impacts were different between genders.

The effectiveness of supplemental vibrational force on enhancing orthodontic treatment. A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The results from the literature regarding the influence of supplemental vibrational forces (SVFs) on orthodontic treatment are controversial. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to evaluate whether SVFs have positive effects, such as in accelerating tooth movement, alleviating pain, and preventing root resorption, in orthodontic patients.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches through five electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central) were complemented by hand searches up to January, 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials reporting on the effects of SVFs in orthodontic patients in English were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection, data extraction, and a risk of bias assessment were independently performed by two reviewers. Study characteristics and outcomes were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A qualitative analysis of the effects of SVFs on orthodontic tooth movement, pain experience, and root resorption was conducted.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies, including nine clinical trials, were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. There was no significant evidence to support the positive effects of SVFs in orthodontic patients, neither in accelerating tooth movement nor in alleviating pain experience. According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, the quality of the evidence was very low for all the outcomes in the qualitative analysis.

LIMITATIONS

The results of this systematic review are based on a limited number of studies and the methodological heterogeneity and non-comparability of original outcomes made it difficult to conduct a meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that SVFs have positive clinical advantages in the alignment of the anterior teeth. The potential positive effects of vibrational forces on space closure, pain experience, and root resorption in orthodontic patients are inconclusive with no sufficient information at present. High-quality clinical trials with larger sample sizes are needed to find more comprehensive evidence of the potential positive effects of vibrational forces.

REGISTRATION

The protocol for this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018098788).

FUNDING

This study has not received any contributions from private or public funding agencies.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

Comparison of pain levels in patients treated with 3 different orthodontic appliances - a randomized trial

Background and aims

To compare pain levels experienced during initial alignment with three different orthodontic appliance types and to correlate pain with male and female differences, if any.

Methods

A prospective, randomized 3-arm parallel trial allocated 36 adult orthodontic patients into three appliance groups: MBT 0.022" slot (Mini Twin, Ormco, Glendora, USA), self ligating 0.022" slot Damon 3MX (Ormco, Glendora, USA) and clear aligners (Smile align, Mumbai, India). The level of discomfort was assessed through a questionnaire based on the visual analogue scale at four hours, twenty four hours, third and seventh day after appliance placement.

Results

Patients treated with clear aligners reported less pain than patients treated with conventional and self ligating fixed appliances. Patients treated with MBT conventional appliances showed greater pain levels than Damon appliances. A significantly higher visual analogue scale score was observed at 24 hours and the least visual analogue scale scores on the seventh day post appliance placement.

Conclusion

During the first week of orthodontic treatment, patients treated with clear aligners reported lower pain than those treated with conventional and self-ligating appliances.

Youth Perception of Different Orthodontic Appliances

PURPOSE

To explore youth perception of the esthetics of different orthodontic appliances measured using different concepts of esthetics.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A questionnaire was answered by 194 youth participants (35.5% were 9-11 years old; 32.5% were 12-14 years old; and 32% were 15-17 years old). Participants evaluated and compared the attractiveness of images of different orthodontic appliances using a Likert scale. They indicated the acceptability of the appliances with a yes/no answer. They then chose which appliance to rank as their most preferred.

RESULTS

The highest median attractiveness rating was for clear aligners (Mdn= 8, IQR= 4.25), followed by lingual and standard ceramic brackets (Mdn= 7, IQR= 6). The lowest median attractiveness rating was for hybrid brackets (Mdn= 4, IQR= 4). Clear aligners were significantly more attractive than all other orthodontic appliances (P<0.0001). Clear aligners also had the highest percentage of acceptability (80%), while hybrid brackets scored the lowest (42%). Ceramic and metal brackets fell in the middle range of attractiveness and acceptability but were chosen by male middle schoolers as their preferred appliances. Clear aligners were ranked the highest by this cohort.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the widespread preference and acceptability of clear aligners among the youth. Other orthodontic appliances were acceptable but to a lesser extent than clear aligners. This study informs orthodontists about their youth consumers' behavior and may help inform treatment discussions in the orthodontic clinic.

Comparison of anchorage loss between conventional and self-ligating brackets during canine retraction - A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Anchorage is defined as the resistance to unwanted tooth movement. In orthodontics, loss of anchorage can be detrimental to treatment. The proponents of orthodontic self-ligating brackets (SLB) advocate the use of extremely light forces thereby reducing anchorage burden. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare anchorage loss during canine retraction between conventional brackets (CB) and self-ligating brackets.

METHODS

An electronic search was conducted on the Cochrane database, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Dental & Oral Science and CINAHL, along with handsearching Google Scholar and clinicaltrials.gov. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials published in the English language on human subjects were included. Orthodontic patients undergoing canine retraction after premolar extraction bonded with self-ligating brackets as the intervention and conventional brackets as the control group in a split mouth design were included. Primary outcome studied was anchorage loss; secondary outcomes were retraction velocity and total amount of canine retraction. Two researchers carried out data extraction and study selection independently. The risk of bias was calculated using the Cochrane's Risk of Bias Assessment tool. The RevMan software was used for quantitative synthesis of data. Effect estimate of the primary and secondary outcomes was expressed using weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane's test for heterogeneity (I² Test); subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate sources of heterogeneity among the studies.

RESULTS

Results of the literature search across all databases yielded 10,439 hits, out of which five studies were included in the qualitative synthesis that met the inclusion criteria. Four studies were randomized control trials (RCTs) where as one was a non-randomized control trial, with 100 subjects included in this systematic review. All studies used a split mouth design. Of the five studies included, only one reported significant differences between CB and SLB for anchorage loss, retraction velocity and total amount of canine retraction (P-value≤0.001). Four studies were included in the meta-analysis, which showed no difference in the amount of anchorage between self-ligating and conventional brackets (weighted mean difference - 0.22; 95% CI [-0.82, 0.38]; P=0.48). Multiple subgroup analyses further revealed there were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups for all outcomes studied.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis found insufficient evidence to suggest a significant difference in anchorage loss between the CB and SLB groups. The scarcity of current evidence dictates that further studies are needed to canonically establish the clinical superiority of one over the other.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019133217.

Pain and/or Discomfort During Debracketing: A Review

The topic of bracket removal and enamel integrity has been extensively investigated. Nevertheless, bracket removal, as far as pain and/or discomfort are concerned, is poorly delineated in the orthodontic literature, i.e., the scarcity of reports in this area is conspicuous. In fact, only six studies were retrieved upon a PubMed search. These clinical studies performed with metal brackets are presented in a chronological order in the present review. Pain and/or discomfort during bracket removal are urgently in need of additional studies. The orthodontists have to be well-informed and updated to convey all the aspects of this procedure to the patient.

Dentoalveolar changes in adults promoted by the use of auxiliary expansion arch: A cbct study

Background

The objective of this study was to evaluate the dentoalveolar effects and the changes of buccal cortical bone in the posterior area after expansion obtained with TMA auxiliary expansion arch in adult patients.

Material and Methods

A retrospective analysis of CT scans of 13 patients (6 male, 7 female) treated at a private clinic, taken immediately before and after the use of an auxiliary expansion archwire, was performed. Mean age at installation of TMA auxiliary expansion arch was 29.23 years (s.d.=9.13) and the mean age when the auxiliary arch was removed was 29.52 years (s.d.=9.16). Mean time of the use of the TMA auxiliary expansion arch was 0.29 years (s.d.=0.09). The patients used fixed appliances and after leveling and alignment, a TMA auxiliary expansion arch was installed, combined with the primary 0.017x0.025-inch thermoactivated Ni-Ti archwire. CBCT scans were taken at T1 and T2. Linear and angular measurements regarding the positioning of maxillary molar, premolars and canines were performed. Intragroup comparison of the variables at T1 and T2 was performed with dependent t tests.

Results

There was statistically significant transverse increase and buccal inclination of all teeth. The cortical bone showed adaptability and displacement in the same direction of tooth movement, but in smaller amounts.

Conclusions

The auxiliary expansion arch proved to be effective to correct dentoalveolar constriction in adult patients, by increasing the buccal dental inclination with larger displacements than the bone crest adaptation and with significant transverse gains.

Key words:Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Maxillary Expansion, Adult treatment.

Valid consent and orthodontic treatment

Valid patient consent is a legal and ethical principle that is fundamental to healthcare provision. Oral health practitioners (OHPs) must understand the principles that need to be addressed to ensure that the consent given by a patient is valid. Failure to obtain consent may result in a negligence claim or a complaint of professional misconduct against the OHP. Orthodontic treatment is mostly elective but is not without risk to the patient. Obtaining and maintaining valid consent for orthodontic treatment presents additional challenges in comparison with other dental procedures as the treatment lasts over a longer time and is most commonly performed in adolescents. In addition, prospective patients need to be informed regarding ‘lifelong’ management in the retention phase to minimise the risk of relapse. The present paper outlines the principles of valid consent with particular regard to orthodontic treatment in the adolescent patient. OHPs must ensure that they are satisfied that the competent patient has the capacity to voluntarily consent. Clinicians must also recognise that valid consent is not a one-off ‘tick the box’ procedural exercise but an ongoing process of effective information sharing in light of changing laws and an ever-changing scientific evidence base within a patient-centred model of healthcare.

Is Low-Level Laser Therapy an Effective Method to Alleviate Pain Induced by Active Orthodontic Alignment Archwire? A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess if low-level laser therapy (LLLT) alleviates pain after the placement of orthodontic alignment archwire and if there could be a specific indication for the usage of LLLT according to the amount of dental crowding.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety subjects were included and randomly assigned to the tested group (orthodontic treatment and LLLT), placebo group (orthodontic treatment and simulated LLLT), and control group (orthodontic treatment only). Inclusion criteria are age between 13 and 30 years, completely erupted mandibular teeth, and lower crowding of ≥3 mm. Exclusion criteria are spaces or diastema in the lower arch, ectopic teeth, treatment plan including extractions or the use of auxiliary devices, and previous orthodontic treatment. Patients reported the pain experienced by using a numeric rating scale, ranging from 0 to 10, at specific time intervals, that is, 2 hours, 6 hours, 24 hours, and from day 2 to 7. Kruskal-Wallis H Test was used to assess differences in the maximum pain and pain experienced at each time interval among the three groups and in the maximum pain reported among subjects with different degree of crowding.

RESULTS

The final sample consisted of 84 patients, 41 male and 43 female patients, with a mean age of 16.5 ± 2.8 years. The pain experienced at each time interval and the maximum pain score were significantly lower in the tested group, whereas no differences were found between control and placebo groups. Moreover, no differences were found in the pain experienced among subjects with mild, moderate, and severe incisor crowding in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LLLT is effective in alleviating the intensity and duration of pain experienced by patients after the engagement of alignment archwire. However, there is no specific indication for the usage of LLLT according to the amount of crowding.

Pain perception among patients treated with passive self-ligating fixed appliances and Invisalign® aligners during the first week of orthodontic treatment

Objective

This study was performed to compare the perception of pain between patients treated with passive self-ligating fixed appliances and those treated with Invisalign aligners.

Methods

This prospective study conducted in Saudi Arabia used an estimated sample of 64 patients from a private dental clinic. After obtaining written informed consent, the patients were divided into two groups; one group (n = 32) was treated using passive self-ligating fixed appliances and the other group (n = 32) using Invisalign^® aligners. Immediately after fitting the appliances, the patients' perception of pain was evaluated through a close-ended and coded self-administrated questionnaire by using a visual analog scale (VAS). Their responses were recorded at 4 hours, 24 hours, day 3, and day 7. Mann-Whitney U-test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Pearson's chi-square test were performed for statistical analysis.

Results

A lower percentage of patients treated with Invisalign aligners reported pain than did patients treated with passive self-ligating fixed appliances, and these differences were statistically significant (p = 0.001). Similarly, the mean VAS score for the Invisalign group was significantly lower than that for the passive self-ligating fixed appliance group at different intervals during the first week of treatment. The intensity of pain with both appliances peaked at 24 hours (mean VAS score, 3.87) and was lowest (mean VAS score, 1.62) on day 7.

Conclusions

During the first week of orthodontic treatment, patients treated with Invisalign aligners reported lower pain than did those treated with passive self-ligating fixed appliances.

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.

Therapeutic efficacy of self-ligating brackets: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Over the last few years, the use of self-ligating brackets in orthodontics has progressed considerably. These systems have been the subject of numerous studies with good levels of evidence making it possible to evaluate their efficacy and efficiency compared to conventional brackets. The aim of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of self-ligating brackets by means of a systematic review of the scientific literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic study was undertaken in the form of a recent search of the electronic Pubmed database, oriented by the use of several keywords combined by Boolean operators relating to the therapeutic efficacy of self-ligating brackets through the study of tooth alignment, space closure, expansion, treatment duration and degree of discomfort. The search was limited to randomized controlled studies, and two independent readers identified studies corresponding to the selection criteria.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The chosen articles comprised 20 randomized controlled trials. The studies analyzed revealed the absence of significant differences between the two types of system on the basis of the clinical criteria adopted, thereby refuting the hypothesis of the superiority of self-ligating brackets over conventional systems.

Supplemental vibrational force does not reduce pain experience during initial alignment with fixed orthodontic appliances: a multicenter randomized clinical trial

This prospective randomized trial investigated the effect of supplemental vibrational force on orthodontic pain during alignment with fixed-appliances. Eighty-one subjects < 20 years-old undergoing extraction-based fixed-appliance treatment were randomly allocated to supplementary (20-minutes/day) use of an intra-oral vibrational device (AcceleDent^®) (n = 29); an identical non-functional (sham) device (n = 25) or fixed-appliances only (n = 27). Each subject recorded pain intensity (using a 100-mm visual-analogue scale) and intake of oral analgesia in a questionnaire, following appliance-placement (T1) and first-adjustment (T2) for 1-week (immediately-after, 4, 24, 72-hours and at 1-week). Mean maximum-pain for the total sample was 72.96 mm [SD 21.59; 95%CI 68.19–77.74 mm] with no significant differences among groups (P = 0.282). Subjects taking analgesics reported slightly higher maximum-pain although this was not significant (P = 0.170). The effect of intervention was independent of analgesia (P = 0.883). At T1 and T2, a statistically and clinically significant increase in mean pain was seen at 4 and 24-hours, declining at 72-hours and becoming insignificant at 1-week. For mean alignment-rate, pain-intensity and use of analgesics, no significant differences existed between groups (P > 0.003). The only significant predictor for mean pain was time. Use of an AcceleDent vibrational device had no significant effect on orthodontic pain or analgesia consumption during initial alignment with fixed appliances.