Pain and discomfort following insertion of miniscrews and premolar extractions: A randomized controlled trial

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.

Pain perception and expectation related to interradicular mini-implants insertion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to compare the expectation and perception of pain reported by patients before and after the installation of interradicular mini-implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic search was performed in six databases. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomized controlled clinical trials (nRCTs); studies using mini-implants in the interradicular region; assessment of pain intensity by visual analogue or numerical scale. The risk of bias assessment was based on the Rob 2 tool and Robins-I.

RESULTS

A total of 1566 articles were retrieved, and 21 met the eligibility criteria. Six were classified as high risk, one as critical and the other one as uncertain, according to the Robins-I tool. In articles evaluated by the Rob2 tool, ten were classified as serious risk and three as moderate risk. A meta-analysis was also performed. Weighted means were calculated among the studies using the random-effects model and forest plots were generated. Heterogeneity was assessed through the Q test and I2 statistics. It was observed, with moderate evidence, that on a scale of 0 to 10, the pain expectation (effect size 4.75) is higher than that effectively pain generated by the procedure (effect size 1.94).

CONCLUSION

Pain expectation was greater than that actually generated by the procedure, being almost non-existent 7 days postoperatively.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study may help the clinician to reassure the patient regarding the sensations that could be experienced during and after the installation.

Does the application of autologous injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin (i-PRF) affect the patient's daily performance during the retraction of upper canines? A single-centre randomized split-mouth controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have assessed different aspects concerning the applications of i-PRF in the oral cavity. However, nothing is known regarding patients' perceptions of the injection of autologous platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF).

OBJECTIVES

To investigate patients' perceptions after injecting platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) in the course of retracting upper canines.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients, whose treatments required extractions of both upper first premolars, were recruited. Extraction side was randomly allocated to the intervention or control sides. After the alignment phase, i-PRF was injected twice with a one-month interval on the buccal and palatal aspects of the extraction sites (intervention side). Patients' perceptions were evaluated with two questionnaires: the first was used to assess the level of pain, discomfort, swelling, eating and swallowing difficulties as well as jaw movement restriction after 1 h (T1), 2 h (T2), 6 h (T3), 24 h (T4) and 48 h (T5) of the second injection; the second questionnaire was used to assess the acceptance of the i-PRF injection and overall satisfaction with this technique at the end of canine retraction phase. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was adopted for this purpose. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used to compare between both sides at all time points while Friedman's Test was the selected test for detecting variables' changes over time. Post-hoc Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Tests were applied when any of the results were significant. As to the multiplicity of tests, Bonferroni Correction was implemented.

RESULTS

Pain and swelling levels were significantly higher on the experimental compared to the control sides at T1, T2, and T3 (P < 0.05), whereas they declined sharply and went back to almost normal values at T4 (after 24 h). At T5 they were 0. Discomfort and difficulty in mastication on intervention sides were significant only at T1 and T2. Pain, swelling, and chewing difficulties were significant (P < 0.001) during the 4 assessed time points. The increase was insignificant regarding swallowing difficulties and jaw movement limitations at all time intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

Injecting autologous (i-PRF) during orthodontic canine retraction is a well-perceived and well-tolerated method due to the limited discomfort which significantly diminishes 24 h afterwards.

TRIAL'S REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier Number: NCT03399422. 16/01/2018).

Pain and discomfort perception during miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction: secondary data analysis of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the perception of pain and discomfort of patients and guardians during treatment between miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction (MAMP) therapy using Hybrid (HH) and Conventional Hyrax (CH) expanders.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Group HH was composed of 18 subjects (8 female, 10 male; initial age: 10.80 years) with Class III malocclusion treated with a hybrid expander in the maxilla and two miniscrews in the anterior region of the mandible. Class III elastics were used from maxillary first molar to mandibular miniscrews. Group CH was composed of 14 subjects (6 female, 8 male; initial age: 11.44 years) treated with a similar protocol except for conventional Hyrax expander. Pain and discomfort of patients and guardians were assessed using a visual analog scale immediately after placement (T1), after 24 hours (T2), and 1 month after appliance installation (T3). Mean differences (MD) were obtained. Intergroup and intragroup timepoint comparisons were performed using independent t-tests, analysis of variance for repeated measures and Friedman test (P < 5%).

RESULTS

Both groups demonstrated similar levels of pain and discomfort with a significant decrease after 1 month of appliance placement (MD: 4.21; P = .608). Compared to patient perceptions, guardians reported a higher level of pain and discomfort at all timepoints (MD, T1: 13.91, P < .001; T2: 23.15, P < .001; T3: 9.35, P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

MAMP therapy with HH and CH produced similar levels of pain and discomfort after appliance installation until 1 month after treatment. Pain and discomfort may not influence the choice between HH and CH expanders.

Assessment of mandibular retromolar space in adults with regard to third molar eruption status

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the difference in length and width of the mandibular retromolar space (RMS) stratified by the different eruption and impaction statuses of the third molars in patients with skeletal Class I malocclusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The right mandibular RMS in 186 adult patients categorized according to the different statuses of the third molar was analyzed by using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). The shortest distances between the inner lingual cortex of the mandibular body and second molar root were measured parallel to the posterior occlusal line (POL) at depths of 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 mm (mandibular retromolar space length in root level, RL_in2,4,6,8,10) on the axial slices with the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) as the reference level. The width of the RMS and second molar root was measured vertical to the POL at the terminal point of the molar distalization at depths of 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 mm (width of the mandibular retromolar space, BW_2,4,6,8,10/ width of the second molar distal root, TW_2,4,6,8,10) from the CEJ.

RESULTS

RL in different measurement planes was 2.72 ± 2.22 ~ 3.74 ± 2.26 for Group A, 5.27 ± 1.68 ~ 9.10 ± 2.04 for Group B, 1.94 ± 2.34 ~ 5.71 ± 4.37 for Group C, 1.83 ± 2.95 ~ 5.05 ± 4.24 for Group D, and 5.93 ± 3.97 ~ 10.52 ± 2.16 for Group E. The BW measurement results for A ~ E group were 9.71 ± 1.41 ~ 10.51 ± 1.81, 9.83 ± 1.39 ~ 12.55 ± 2.11, 9.96 ± 1.21 ~ 12.17 ± 1.62, 9.82 ± 1.47 ~ 12.28 ± 2.77, and 10.02 ± 1.20 ~ 12.75 ± 0.82, respectively. There was no significant difference between men and women in any measurements (P > 0.05). Patients with normal third molars erupted and those vertically impacted possessed larger RMS lengths than those in which the third molars were missing, horizontally impacted or mesially impacted (P < 0.05). In each measurement plane, TW was significantly smaller than BW (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Sex had no effect on the length or width of the mandibular RMS. Different statuses of third molars can also differentially affect the mandibular RMS. The mandibular RMS width is not a limit for mandibular molar distalization.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

When considering the distalization of mandibular molars, more attention should be directed to the lingual cortex of the mandible, and CBCT scans are recommended for patients who require significant mandibular molar distalization. The mandible buccal shelf and retromolar area maybe a safe zone to insert the miniscrew for molar distalization.

What is the Oral Health-related Quality of Life following Miniscrew-Assisted Rapid Palatal Expansion (MARPE)? A prospective clinical cohort study

Background

Miniscrew-Assisted Rapid Palatal Expansion (MARPE) is a non-surgical orthodontic treatment for transverse maxillary deficiency. This study aimed to investigate the Oral Health-related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) and pain perception of patients undergoing MARPE treatment.

Methods

42 consecutive patients (9 men, 33 women) from the age of 16 onwards (mean: 27.4 ± 9.3 years; range 17.1–55.7 years) who received a MARPE treatment were included. OHRQoL was assessed with the short form of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaire. Patients filled out the questionnaire at baseline (T0) and weekly during the expansion phase (P1) and in the post-expansion phase (P2). Pain intensity was assessed with a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) questionnaire and filled out daily during expansion, along with a question on the intake of analgesics. The mean weekly and total OHIP-score and OHIP-score per domain were calculated at T0, P1 and P2, as well as mean weekly and total VAS-scores for average pain, maximum pain and analgesics intake during P1. Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to test for differences in OHIP between T0, P1 and P2. The level of significance was set at 0.05.

Results

The mean OHIP-score was 10.86 ± 9.71 at T0 and increased to 17.18 ± 10.43 during P1 (p < 0.001), after which it returned to pre-expansion levels, 9.27 ± 7.92 (p = 0.907) during P2. At the domain level, there was a statistically significant increase in OHIP-score at P1 for functional limitation, physical pain, psychological discomfort and social disability. The mean VAS-score for average pain during expansion was 16.00 ± 19.73 mm. Both OHIP-score (25.00 ± 10.25), average pain (33.72 ± 16.88 mm), maximum pain (44.47 ± 17.99 mm) and analgesics intake (59%) were highest at initiation of the expansion and decreased by the end of expansion.

Conclusions

MARPE is a generally well-tolerated expansion treatment. A temporary decline in OHRQoL and moderate pain are present at the start of expansion, followed by a recovery of OHRQoL and very mild pain during the rest of treatment. Clinicians should be aware of the effects of MARPE on patients’ quality of life and manage the expected discomfort and impediments with adequate communication and patient education.

Revisiting the Complications of Orthodontic Miniscrew

Miniscrew has been used widely as an effective orthodontic anchorage with reliable stationary quality, ease of insertion and removal techniques, immediate or early loading, flexibility in site insertion, less trauma, minimal patient cooperation, and lower price. Nonetheless, it is not free of complications, and they could impact not only the miniscrew success rate but also patients’ oral health. In this article, literature was searched and reviewed electronically as well as manually to evaluate the complications of orthodontic miniscrew. The selected articles are analyzed and subcategorized into complications during and after insertion, under loading, and during and after removal along with treatment if needed according to the time. In addition, the noteworthy associated factors such as the insertion and removal procedures, characteristics of both regional and local anatomic structures, and features of the miniscrew itself that play a significant role in the performance of miniscrews are also discussed based on literature evidence. Clinicians should notice these complications and their related factors to make a proper treatment plan with better outcomes.

Pain Perception Associated with Mini-Implants and Interventions for Pain Management: A Cross-Sectional Questionnaire-Based Survey

Background

Orthodontists use mini-implants temporarily as an effective mode of skeletal anchorage devices. The placement of mini-implants can cause pain and discomfort to the patients. Patients often develop swelling, and the pain could interfere with their daily activities. Practitioners tend to prescribe antibiotics and pain medication for management.

Objectives

The main objectives of this study are to evaluate the pain perception and discomfort due to mini-implant placement experienced by the patient and evaluate the interventions for pain management commonly practiced among orthodontists.

Materials and Methods

The study was designed as a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study. A total of 271 patients were assessed, for whom 625 mini-implants (ranging from 1.2 to 2 mm diameter and length 8-14 mm) were placed. Pain scores were assessed using the VAS and the "Faces" pain rating scale to collect data about discomfort in daily activity and function. Data was collected from 244 patients. A total of 155 orthodontists were questioned regarding the prescription of medications and the interventions for managing pain and adverse effects.

Results

Average pain score among female subjects was 16.71 and among men was 13.5. The highest pain scores were recorded for palatal mini-implants with an average score of 36.29 and the least for interradicular mini-implants with an average score of 9.02. Among the subjects, 47.9% of them took analgesics, and the most commonly prescribed analgesics were paracetamol (39%). Swelling at the site is where the mini-implants were placed, and ulceration due to implants were commonly dealt with the excision of the surrounding soft tissue, composite placement, and palliative care with oral analgesic gels.

Conclusion

Female subjects had more mini-implants placed, and female subjects had also given more pain scores than their male counterparts. Palatal mini-implants caused the highest pain, followed by mini-implants placed at the infrazygomatic crest and the buccal shelf region. Palatal mini-implants caused maximum discomfort during speech and eating, followed by the mini-implant in the buccal shelf and the infrazygomatic crest region that also caused difficulty in yawning and laughing. Infiltration anesthesia was commonly given for the placement of interradicular implants and extra-alveolar mini-implants. Paracetamol was the most prescribed by the orthodontists, and more than half the doctors did not regularly prescribe antibiotics.

The Herbst appliance and its modifications - prevalence and individuality

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the use of modified, cast splint Herbst appliances for the treatment of skeletal class II as an alternative to surgical bite correction over a period of five years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The patient cases all originate from the patients of the Department of Orthodontics at the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany and the orthodontic practice Dres. Zöller, Kaiserslautern, Germany. Inclusion criteria were orthodontic treatment with the Herbst appliance and its modifications. The type of modification, number and frequency of the different modifications were determined on the basis of patient files, X-ray documents, photos and models.

RESULTS

Of a total of 2881 new admissions over a period of five years, 1751 patients came from the Department of Orthodontics at the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and 1130 from the orthodontic practice in Kaiserslautern. A total of 336 patients were treated with a Herbst appliance during the period mentioned. 14 (13%) of the cases from the Herbst patient collective of the University Medical Center and 45 (19%) of the cases from the orthodontic practice were classified as modifications. The following modifications could be determined in descending order: University Medical Center Mainz: Herbst for anchorage during space closure (65%) > distalization (14%) ≥ bar construction as a space maintainer (14%) > Herbst applicance for anchoring for the adjustment of impacted teeth (7%); orthodontic practice Kaiserslautern: Herbst appliance with quadhelix in the maxilla (42%) > distalization (27%) > space closure (15%) > bar construction as a space maintainer (9%) > adjustment of impacted teeth (7%), multiple modifications occurred at 11%. The combination of quadhelix and Herbst appliance as well as multiple modifications have not yet been used in the University Medical Center Mainz. As an alternative to dysgnathia surgery, 23 adult patients (> 18 years) from the University Medical Center and 22 from the orthodontic practice were treated with a Herbst appliance.

CONCLUSION

Nearly 12% of Herbst appliances are used in everyday orthodontic practice and almost 18% of these are used with modification(s). The high anchoring quality and force-effect geometry of the Herbst appliance is suitable for combining and treating various other treatment tasks in addition to the classical treatment task of class II therapy.

Vacuum-formed retainers and bonded retainers for dental stabilization-a randomized controlled trial. Part II: patients' perceptions 6 and 18 months after orthodontic treatment

OBJECTIVE

To compare removable vacuum-formed Essix C retainers with bonded cuspid-to-cuspid retainers (CTCs) regarding patients' perceptions after debonding and 6 and 18 months of retention.

TRIAL DESIGN

A single-centre two-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

This trial included 104 adolescent patients, computer-generated randomized, with sequentially numbered, opaque and sealed envelopes, into two groups and stratified by gender. They were treated with fixed appliances with and without tooth extractions in both jaws and were ready for debond. Patients in the intervention arm received a vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) in the mandible (n = 52), and patients in the active comparator arm received a CTC (n = 52). Both groups had a VFR in the maxilla. Treatment outcome satisfaction, quality of care and attention, side-effects during the retention phase, and retainer acceptance and compliance were assessed with questionnaires at baseline (T1, 2 weeks after debond) and after 6 (T2) and 18 months (T3) of retention. Operator was blinded to group assignment during measurements.

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients completed the questionnaires at all three time points. Patients were overall satisfied with treatment outcome, quality of care and attention, and how their retainers worked at all three time points, with no differences between groups. At T1 and T3, the VFR group reported significantly more pain and discomfort (T1: P = 0.005, T3: P < 0.0001) and soreness (T1: P = 0.001, T3: P = 0.011) in the mandible compared to the CTC group. The CTC group found it easier to get used to their retainers. After 18 months, 70.5 per cent in the VFR group and 73.9 per cent in the CTC group reported the recommended wear-time of the VFRs. Decreased wear-time was correlated to perceived pain and discomfort (rs = -0.421, P < 0.0001).

LIMITATIONS

The results were limited by our retainer design and recommended wear regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Both groups reported high treatment outcome satisfaction and low levels of side-effects during the retention phase. Nevertheless, the VFR group reported more pain and discomfort at T1 and at T3. Self-reported compliance was the same in both groups. The VFR group was more concerned about relapse.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03070444 (https://clinicaltrials.gov).

Quantitative evaluation of retromolar space in adults with different vertical facial types

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the differences in mandibular retromolar space among skeletal Class I subjects with different vertical divergence using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 123 skeletal Class I patients (aged 20-40 years) were categorized into hypodivergent, normodivergent, and hyperdivergent groups based on S-N/Go-Me and facial height index (FHI). Mandibular retromolar space was measured at four planes parallel to the occlusal plane along the sagittal line and molar cuspal line, respectively. The mandibular retromolar space was compared among the three vertical groups.

RESULTS

The hyperdivergent group had a significantly smaller mandibular retromolar space compared with the other two groups, while the hypodivergent group had the largest retromolar space. In addition, the hyperdivergent group had a larger number of subjects whose roots contacted the lingual cortex of the mandibular body.

CONCLUSIONS

The hyperdivergent group tends to exhibit the smallest mandibular retromolar space and highest risk of cortex contact. Clinicians should keep in mind that successful molar distalization requires sufficient retromolar space, especially for hyperdivergent subjects, which should be verified with CBCT.

Failure load and stress analysis of orthodontic miniscrews with different transmucosal collar diameter

Miniscrews have been introduced in orthodontics as temporary anchorage devices (TADs), in order to move the correct teeth and avoid other elements to slide toward a wrong direction. Moreover the ease of use of TADs encouraged clinicians to use miniscrews also for non-conventional purposes, as fixation in mandibular fracture, mini-implant supported temporary pontics, miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expanders and distalizers. These applications develop higher forces, so TAD fracture can be an unwanted complication. Some authors analyzed torsional loads but no studies measured forces required to bend the screws and ultimate flexural strength. Accordingly, in the present report, Ti-6Al-4V TADs were mechanically evaluated. Seven different diameters of screws were tested: 1.3 mm (Aarhus Screw, Medicon), 1.5 mm (Spider Screw, HDC), 1.6 mm (Aarhus Screw, Medicon), 1.7 mm (Ortho Easy, Forestadent), 1.8 mm (Ortho Implant, 3 M), 1.9 mm (Spider Screw, HDC) and 2.0 mm (Storm, Kristal). The forces to bend the titanium TADs were measured at 0.1 mm, 0.2 mm magnitude of deflections and at maximum load (as peak before screw fracture) in air with a universal testing machine. Statistical analyses were performed. Both at 0.1 mm and at 0.2 mm deflections and at maximum load, the significantly highest forces were reported with 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, and 2.0 mm TADs. The lowest values were reported with 1.6, 1.5, and 1.3 mm mini-implants. No significant differences were reported between 1.6 mm and 1.7 mm screws. It was found that load values in N versus stress in MPa were not fully comparable when screws with small and larger diameter were compared. Therefore, when placing a miniscrew for applications that need maximum shear bending resistance, these results would be considered in order to reduce risk of unwanted fracture.

Pain and discomfort during the first week of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) using two different RME appliances: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare perceived pain intensity, discomfort, and jaw function impairment during the first week with tooth-borne or tooth-bone-borne rapid maxillary expansion (RME) appliances.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-four patients (28 girls and 26 boys) with a mean age of 9.8 years (SD 1.28 years) were randomized into two groups. Group A received a conventional hyrax appliance and group B a hybrid hyrax appliance anchored on mini-implants in the anterior palate. Questionnaires were used to assess pain intensity, discomfort, analgesic consumption, and jaw function impairment on the first and fourth days after RME appliance insertion.

RESULTS

Fifty patients answered both questionnaires. Overall median pain on the first day in treatment was 13.0 (range 0-82) and 3.5 (0-78) for groups A and B, respectively, with no significant differences in pain, discomfort, analgesic consumption, or functional jaw impairment between groups. Overall median pain on the fourth day was 9.0 (0-90) and 2.0 (0-71) for groups A and B, respectively, with no significant differences between groups. There were also no significant differences in pain levels within group A, while group B scored significantly lower concerning pain from molars and incisors and tensions from the jaw on day 4 than on the first day in treatment. There was a significant positive correlation between age and pain and discomfort on the fourth day in treatment. No correlations were found between sex and pain and discomfort, analgesic consumption, and jaw function impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

Both tooth-borne and tooth-bone-borne RME were generally well tolerated by the patients during the first week of treatment.