Efficacy of Topical Anesthetics in Pain Perception During Mini-implant Insertion: Systematic Review of Controlled Clinical Trials

Orthodontic mini-implants: clinical and peri-implant evaluation

The study evaluated the clinical changes of orthodontic mini-implants (MI) inserted for the purpose of anchoring during orthodontic treatment. The null hypotheses were: 1-that there is no correlation between proximity of the MI to the root and peri-implantitis or mobility; 2-that peri-implantitis does not interfere with mobility; 3-that the pain is not related to mobility or peri-implantitis. Forty (40) patients were selected and the MI were evaluated for each patient. MI in the upper and lower arch were evaluated for a period of approximately 6 months with relationship to the distance MI - root, peri-implantitis, mobility, biological damage and pain through the analysis of periapical radiography and clinical/periodontal evaluation. The evaluations were performed out by means of scores and a correlation was made between the variables. No statistically significant differences were found between the upper and lower arch in the variables evaluated, except for the mobility that was more present in the lower arch (p = 0.0336). There was a correlation between peri-implantitis and mobility (p = 0.0003) and between pain and mobility (p = 0.0443). However, there was no correlation between a greater degree of peri-implantitis and greater mobility (p = 0.7054). In addition, the MI placed too close to the root showed peri-implantitis (p = 0.0142). The null hypotheses were rejected because there was a positive correlation between the analyzes. The placement of MI close to the root led to greater peri-implantitis. Patients who reported pain had greater mobility of the MI and peri-implantitis led to greater mobility.

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.

Effectiveness of Secondary Alveolar Bone Graft on Canine Eruption: Systematic Review

There are controversies related to the effects of bone grafts on tooth eruption and impaction in patients with cleft lip and palate. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of bone grafting on eruption of canines in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). An electronic search was conducted in six electronic databases and gray literature, without limitations on year of publication or language. The primary outcome was the increase in rate of canine eruption; the secondary outcomes were success of the bone graft, canine impaction due to agenesis of the lateral incisor, and effect of orthodontic treatment before and after bone grafting. The risk of bias was analyzed by means of the tool Cochrane risk of bias in nonrandomized controlled trials (NRCTs) of interventions (ROBINS-I). The certainty of the evidence was assessed for outcomes reported through a narrative synthesis using grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. Four NRCTs were included, with a total of 360 patients, 283 UCLP and 77 bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP). The studies reported association between the increase in the rate of tooth eruption and bone graft with very low certainty of evidence, and greater experience of surgical success, with low certainty of evidence. The majority of the studies found an association between increase in the rate of canine impaction and agenesis of the lateral incisor, with very low certainty of evidence. There was very low certainty of the efficacy of secondary alveolar bone grafting for increasing the rates of eruption and reducing impaction of the maxillary canine.

Topical anesthesia for stainless steel crown tooth preparation in primary molars: a pilot study

Background

Placement of full-coverage restorations such as stainless steel crowns (SSCs) for pulpectomy treated primary molars is essential for successful outcomes. The tooth preparation process for SSCs can cause discomfort to gingival tissues since the crown should be seated 1 mm subgingivally. The purpose of this prospective trial was to compare the effectiveness of subgingival and transmucosal application of topical anesthetics on dental pain during SSC tooth preparation among 6- to 8-year-old children.

Methods

A consecutive sample of 27 children, aged 6-8 years, who required an SSC after pulp therapy in primary molars were randomly divided into three groups. Group A received infiltration anesthesia before tooth preparation for SSC placement, whereas in Group B and C, only topical anesthesia was applied subgingivally and transmucosally. Wong-Bakers Faces pain rating scale (WBFPS) scores were recorded after tooth preparation. Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) scores were evaluated by two blinded and calibrated investigators through video recordings of the patient during tooth preparation. Data were tabulated, and inter-group comparisons were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and analysis of variance tests.

Results

Out of the 27 participants, 48% were boys and 52% were girls, with an overall mean age of 6.83 years. Group A showed the least pain scores according to both the scales, followed by Group B and Group C. The pain intensity was statistically significant on both the pain scales with P = 0.003 for FLACC and P < 0.001 for WBFPS.

Conclusion

Subgingival application of topical anesthesia reduced pain to a certain extent but not as effectively as infiltration anesthesia during SSC tooth preparation in primary molars. Transmucosal application of topical anesthesia did not reduce discomfort when compared to the other two interventions.

Effect of Orthodontic Treatment on Tooth Autotransplantation: Systematic Review of Controlled Clinical Trials

This systematic review was focused on evaluating tooth autotransplantation, considering its impacts on the teeth, bone, soft tissues, and aesthetics in orthodontic patients. A bibliographic search was conducted without limitations on year of publication or language in the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Medline Complete, Cochrane, Clinical Trials, and Trials Central. For triage of articles, indications, surgical planning, orthodontic movement, risk factors for treatment, and long-term follow-ups were considered. For outcomes, the results with reference to teeth, alveolar bone, periodontal tissues, and esthetic satisfaction were considered. Risk of bias was evaluated using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies-MINORS. The results showed 10 controlled clinical trials, and no randomized clinical trials were found. The selected studies included 715 patients and 934 autotransplanted teeth among which there were premolars, molars, and anterior teeth evaluated in the long term, indicating that orthodontics associated with autotransplantation indicated a result that was generally clinically acceptable. The quality of the set of evidence was considered medium due to the presence of different methodological problems, risk of bias, and significant heterogeneity in the evaluated studies. There was a sufficient body of evidence that justified autotransplantation in patients who needed orthodontic movement. In teeth, there was an increase in root resorption influenced by orthodontics, but without impacting on the general clinical result in the long term. Bone and periodontal tissue do not appear to be affected by orthodontics. The patient’s aesthetic satisfaction was not considered in the studies.