The analgesic effect of benzocaine mucoadhesive patches on orthodontic pain caused by elastomeric separators, a preliminary study

Is Diclofenac Transbuccal Mucoadhesive Patch Superior to Oral Diclofenac for the Management of Postoperative Sequelae After Third Molar Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Pain, swelling, and trismus are the most common sequalae following the surgical removal of mandibular third molars. They pose significant challenges for clinicians, prompting the exploration of efficacious management approaches.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of transbuccal mucoadhesive patch of diclofenac sodium versus an oral tablet in controlling the aforesaid sequelae.

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE

A prospective split-mouth, single-blinded study was conducted in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at AMC Dental College and Hospital, Ahmedabad. The study sample included patients of either sex, aged 18 to 45 years, requiring surgical removal of bilaterally symmetrical mandibular third molars under local anesthesia. Patients who had consumed analgesics within 24 hours prior to the procedure were excluded.

PREDICTOR VARIABLE

The primary predictor variable was the route of administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. The study group received transbuccal mucoadhesive patches containing 20 mg diclofenac sodium, whereas the control group received oral tablets of 50 mg.

MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE

Postoperative pain, measured with visual analog scale, was the primary outcome variable, whereas swelling, mouth opening, onset of analgesic effect, and adverse events were assessed as secondary outcome variables.

COVARIATES

Two categories of covariates were considered. First, demographic: age and gender. Second, perioperative: pattern of impaction.

ANALYSES

Intergroup comparison was made using a paired sample t-test and an independent sample t-test, while intragroup differences were assessed with a one-way ANOVA and a paired t-test. P value ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Out of 146 patients screened initially, the final study sample included 37 subjects with a mean age of 26.08 ± 5.09 years (21 (56.75%) males and 16 (43.25%) females). The study group exhibited a significantly lower postoperative pain score compared to the control group on days 0, 1, 2, and 3 postoperatively (P ≤ .05). No statistically significant difference was observed in reduction of facial swelling and improvement in mouth opening on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd days postoperatively between both the groups (P ≥ .05). The mean onset of analgesia was statistically significant in the study group (19.96 ± 5.40 minutes) compared to the control group (52.56 ± 6.33 minutes) (P < .001).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Transbuccal mucoadhesive patch of diclofenac sodium offers effective pain control with quicker analgesia and fewer side effects compared to an oral tablet.

Comparative assessment between chewing gum, bite wafers, and ibuprofen in pain control following separators placement among orthodontic patients

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of chewing gum and using bite wafers in reducing pain after the placement of separators in orthodontic patients and to compare that efficiency with ibuprofen use. Additionally, this study evaluated the effect of non-pharmacological pain control methods on the frequency of separators falling out.

Methods

The study sample comprised 105 female patients between 15 and 35 years of age. The patients were randomly selected and classified into three groups (35 each). Each group was given either ibuprofen, viscoelastic bite wafers, or chewing gum immediately after the placement of separators and every 8 h for 1 week, as needed. The patients were asked to record their pain perception using a visual analog scale following separator placement at 2 h, 6 h, bedtime, 24 h, and at 2, 3, and 7 days. Analysis of variance testing was used for the data analysis.

Results

Among the three studied groups, there were no significant differences in pain perception at any time point. The patients experienced significantly higher pain scores at bedtime and 24 h after separator placement. In addition, there were statistically significant findings in pain perception at different time points within each pain relief method (p = 0.000, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The use of chewing gum and bite wafers in alleviating orthodontic pain was beneficial and comparable to ibuprofen use following the placement of separators before orthodontic treatment among orthodontic patients.

Er:YAG Laser Therapy on Alveolar Osteitis After Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study

Background: Alveolar osteitis (AO) or "dry socket" affects the quality of life of patients, and there is a high clinical demand for its effective treatment. Objective: To evaluate the effect of Er:YAG laser therapy (ErLT) on AO after mandibular third molar surgery. Methods: Eighty-three patients were randomly divided into Er (n = 43) and control groups (n = 40). In the Er group, the Er:YAG laser (2940 nm; AT Fidelis Fotona, Ljubljana, Slovenia) was used to irradiate the AO site directly in micro short-pulsed mode (pulse duration 0.1 ms, pulse energy 100 mJ, frequency 40 Hz, water 4, and air 2) until all debris and necrotic material had been removed, exposing fresh bone and soft tissue surfaces with blood exudation. The control group received mechanical therapy until the treated lesions resembled those in the Er group. Pain assessment was performed at baseline and on days 1-7 post-intervention using the visual analog scale (VAS). Wound healing was assessed using the wound healing index (WHI). The operating times of the two therapies were also recorded. Results: Group Er had lower VAS scores than the control group on days 1-3 (p = 0.00). There was no significant difference between the two groups on days 4-7 (p = 0.15). The WHI scores were better in the Er group than those in the control group (t = 2.65, p = 0.01), especially in terms of redness (t = 2.70, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in the operating time between the two groups (t = 0.76, p = 0.45). Conclusions: Compared with mechanical therapy, ErLT for AO provides rapid pain relief and improved wound healing.

Photobiomodulation for Pain Relief After Third Molar Extraction: A Randomized Double-Blind Split-Mouth Clinical Trial

Objective: To evaluate the local and systemic application of photobiomodulation (PBM) to reduce pain after third molar extraction. Background: PBM has been applied locally to reduce pain after third molar extraction, but there are no published studies evaluating its systemic application for this purpose. Methods: Thirty patients with two erupted third molars indicated for extraction were included in this split-mouth clinical trial. Extractions were performed 3 weeks apart in each patient, with one extraction socket being randomly assigned to local and systemic PBM (PBM group) and the other to no PBM (control group). Postoperative analgesia consisted of oral acetaminophen for 3 days. Outcomes included pain (visual analog scale), swelling, and quality of life (14-item Oral Health Impact Profile) assessed before and immediately, 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days after extraction. Results were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by Student-Newman-Keuls test. Results: In the control group, pain increased significantly at 24 and 48 h after extraction (p = 0.0000), decreasing after 7 days (before: 0.36; immediately after: 1.06; 24 h: 4.26; 48 h: 2.53; 7 days: 0.36). In the PBM group, patients reported no pain at all time points, indicating effectiveness of local and systemic PBM in relieving pain after third molar extraction (p = 0.2151) (before: 0.30; immediately after: 0.36; 24 h: 0.86; 48 h: 0.30; 7 days: 0.03). PBM also had a modulatory effect on the inflammatory process and improved comfort after extraction. Conclusions: Combined local and systemic PBM can be useful for pain relief, swelling control, and quality-of-life improvement in patients undergoing third molar extraction.

Photobiostimulatory Effect of a Single Dose of Low-Level Laser on Orthodontic Tooth Movement and Pain

Objective

To assess the effect of low-level laser applied at 3 weeks intervals on orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) and pain using conventional brackets (CB).

Materials and Methods

Twenty patients with Angle's class II div 1 (10 males and 10 females; aged 20.25 ± 3.88 years) needing bilateral extractions of maxillary first bicuspids were recruited. Conventional brackets MBT of 0.022 in slot (McLaughlin Bennett Trevisi) prescription braces (Ortho Organizers, Carlsbad, Calif) were bonded. After alignment and levelling phase, cuspid retraction began with nitinol closed coil spring on 19 × 25 stainless steel archwire, wielding 150 gram force. 7.5 J/cm² energy was applied on 10 points (5 buccal and 5 palatal) on the canine roots on the investigational side using gallium-aluminum-arsenic diode laser (940 nm wavelength, iLase™ Biolase, Irvine, USA) in a continuous mode. Target tissues were irradiated once in three weeks for 9 weeks at a stretch (T0, T1, and T2). Patients were given a feedback form based on the numeric rating scale (NRS) to record the pain intensity for a week. Silicon impressions preceded the coil activation at each visit (T0, T1, T2, and T3), and the casts obtained were scanned with the Planmeca CAD/CAM™ (Helsinki, Finland) scanner.

Results

The regimen effectively accelerated (1.55 ± 0.25 mm) tooth movement with a significant reduction in distress on the investigational side as compared to the placebo side (94 ± 0.25 mm) (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

This study reveals that the thrice-weekly LLLT application can accelerate OTM and reduce the associated pain.

Randomised controlled trial of a microneedle patch with a topical anaesthetic for relieving the pain of dental injections

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether a microneedle patch combined with 5% topical lidocaine reduces dental injection pain more than a patch without microneedles combined with 5% topical lidocaine.

METHODS

This proof of principle randomised, two-treatment, double-blind, crossover split-unit design study in 16 healthy participants investigated levels of perceived pain from 3 increasing pain provoking challenges, when topical 5% lidocaine dental gel was applied to the oral mucosa with a microneedle patch and a patch with no microneedles, prior to infiltration with local anaesthesia on 2 visits. Pain was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) and 4-point verbal rating scale (VRS).

RESULTS

15 participants completed the study. Mean pain scores, lower at buccal sites, increased in both groups across challenges 1-3: Test palatal 5.1, 11.9, 26.8; buccal 0.7, 2.8, 18.3; Control palatal 12.3, 18.7, 39.5; buccal 4.0, 6.9, 30.6. The microneedle patch plus lidocaine significantly lowered VAS pain scores at both sites for all challenges, the biggest mean difference seen palatally after challenge 3 (12.7, p < 0.001). VRS pain scores were also significantly reduced for test compared to control for all 3 challenges (p = 0.014). Buccal scores favoured the microneedle patch, significantly for pain challenge 3 (p = 0.025). No adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior oral application of a microneedle patch combined with 5% topical lidocaine gel reduced the pain experienced from dental infiltration. Microneedle patch use in the dental setting offers the prospect of improving degree and depth of anaesthesia from topically applied anaesthetic gel, without itself causing any pain.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Dental injections are associated with fear and anxiety. Application of a microneedle patch, combined with topical anaesthetic, to the oral mucosa prior to delivery of the injection reduces the pain from this dental procedure. This novel technique may allay patients' apprehension of local anaesthesia and improve quality of life outcomes.

Efficacy of liquid nitrogen and electrocautery assisted gingival depigmentation in term of patient's perception, histological wound healing - A randomized triple blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Hyper-melanin pigmentation of the gingiva (GMP) is one of the imperative contributory factors for smile-sensitive individuals. Numerous gingival depigmentation (GD) procedures have been attempted in the literature to evaluate the clinical outcome mostly. Hence, a randomized clinical-histopathological triple-blinded trial was planned to evaluate the pain experienced by the patient, gingival wound healing, and density of melanocytes following liquid nitrogen-assisted GD (LNAGD) and electrocautery-assisted GD (ECAGD) procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-two arches with bilateral physiologic labial/buccal GMP extending from distal aspect tooth #14-24 and #34-44 in 16 healthy individuals were selected and were equally treated with LNAGD and ECAGD techniques. Dummett oral pigmentation index and Hedin melanin index were evaluated at baseline and 3 months' postoperatively (PO). The visual analog scale was utilized for the intensity of pain assessment at baseline (immediately after treatment) and 1st day and 7th day PO. Histological wound healing and density of melanocytes were evaluated using Gal et al.'s wound-healing assessment index and Patsakas et al.'s criterion, at baseline (0), 8, 24, 72, and 96 h; 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th week; and 3 months and at 0 and 3 months' PO, respectively. Statistical analysis was done using one-way ANOVA, post hoc Tukey, unpaired, and paired "t" test.

RESULTS

Both groups showed a statistically significant influence on the parameters evaluated.

CONCLUSION

The LNAGD had a substantial superior result in terms of early wound healing, reduction in density of melanocytes, reduction in pain experienced by the patient, with reduction and delay in the recurrence of GMP.

Benzocaine: Review on a Drug with Unfold Potential

Benzocaine is well-known for its role as an anesthetic agent and largely used in oral ulcers, ear pain and dental complications. Along with lidocaine and other local anesthetics, benzocaine has marked it as an anesthetic agent in surgical procedures and as Na+ channels blocker, as well. Analogues of benzocaine have been found to possess biological potentials including antibacterial, antifungal and anti-cancer. Some derivatives were found to have conspicuous action against tuberculosis. The current review focuses to explore the century-long potential of the molecule and its analogs that have appeared in the literature. Furthermore, highlighting the biological potential of benzocaine and its analogues shall open-up new dimensions of future research to design more potent analogues.

The effect of naproxen patches on relieving orthodontic pain by evaluation of VAS and IL-1β inflammatory factor: a split-mouth study

Introduction:

Pain related to orthodontic tooth movement is common and cause dissatisfaction and discomfort. Objective: The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of naproxen patches in pain control during orthodontic tooth separation, by means of visual analogue scale (VAS) and interleukin 1β (IL-1β) levels in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF).

Methods:

In this split-mouth triple-blind clinical trial, with 40 patients following separation, 5% naproxen or placebo patches were randomly placed on the upper right or left first molars every 8 hours. Pain intensity scores were determined after 2 and 6 hours, sleep time, 24 hours, days 2, 3 and 7 by the patients using a 100-mm VAS ruler. IL-1β levels in GCF were evaluated by ELISA at baseline, 1 and 24 hours and 7 days. Paired samples t-tests and two-way repeated measures ANOVA analysis of variance with a significance level of 0.05 were applied.

Results:

A total number of 30 patients (13 males and 17 females) finished the trial. Significant differences were found in pain scores (p< 0.0001) and IL-1β levels (p= 0.047) between naproxen and placebo groups. Lower pain scores were reported for the patients using naproxen patches at all time points, except 1 hour after separation. IL-1β levels were lower for the patients using naproxen patches only 1 hour after separation (p= 0.047). The peak of pain scores and IL-1β levels were calculated at 24 hours.

Conclusion:

In the light of VAS scores and IL-1β levels, naproxen patches reduced the pain caused by separator placement.

Effect of ozone and diode laser (635 nm) in reducing orthodontic pain in the maxillary arch—a randomized clinical controlled trial

The effect of ozone, diode laser irradiation, and presence of teeth crowding/spacing on pain perception in orthodontic patient was tested. Overall, 76 patients [55 women and 21 men; age 35.1(6.4) years] who met the inclusion criteria participated in the study. Immediately after fixed orthodontic appliance placement, the patients were exposed to a pain relief treatment (one single session) using either 635-nm diode laser (SmartM, Lasotronix, Warsaw, Poland) or ozone therapy (OzoneDTA, Apoza, New Taipei City, Taiwan) by placing the handpieces in the area of each teeth apex and interdental papillae, from the maxillary right first molar to the maxillary left first molar. Subjects were divided into three groups: control group (G1, n = 26), ozone (G2, n = 26, exposed to ozone therapy, generator probe type 3, working time per point 5 s, 23 points, application time 1 min and 55 s), and laser group (G3, n = 25, exposed to continuous mode diode laser, 400 mW, handpiece diameter 8 mm, spot area 0.5024 cm2, power density per second 1.59 W/cm2, dose 2 J per point, time: 5 s per point, 23 points, total energy per session 46 J, application time 1 min and 55 s). The level of teeth crowding was assessed using the Lundstrom indicator. The patients received a questionnaire for pain assessment (the Numeric Rating Scale, NRS-11, grade level 0–10) and recorded at 7 time points (1 h, 6 h, and 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 days ) after the fixed orthodontic appliance placement. The mean pain values for the diode laser, ozone, and control group were 3.6 (1.31) (95% CI, 2.95–4.25), 5.25 (3.37) (95% CI, 3.52–6.98), and 5.75 (2.40) (95% CI, 4.69–6.81), respectively. We observed lower pain values in the diode laser group compared to the control group (p = 0.0237). The use of ozone in this study did not result in significant pain reduction in comparison to control (p = 0.8040) and laser groups (p = 0.1029). There were no differences in pain perception between patients with crowded teeth and non-crowded teeth in each group (G1, p = 0.66, G2, p = 0.86, G3, p = 0.24). The use of 635-nm diode laser led to decreased pain perception; however, ozone and presence of teeth crowding/spacing did not affect the pain perception in orthodontic patients during the first 5 days after the fixed orthodontic appliance placement.

Does audiovisual information affect anxiety and perceived pain levels in miniscrew application? - a within-person randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Anxiety can cause difficulties during surgical procedures. The main objective of this study was to evaluate changes in patients' anxiety and perceived pain levels after receiving audiovisual and verbal information about miniscrew application.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-eight patients (30 males and 58 females) with a mean age of 18.18 ± 5.39 years who had fixed orthodontic treatment and required miniscrew anchorage took part in this questionnaire-based randomized controlled trial. The participants were randomly allocated to two groups and either watched a video depicting miniscrew application (study group, 44 patients) or were informed verbally about the procedure (control group, 44 patients) before miniscrew placement. The audiovisual information was given via a video containing footage of local anesthesia injection, topical antiseptic application, and miniscrew insertion. The Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) was used to measure anxiety immediately before miniscrew application. Self-drilling miniscrews (8 mm length, 1.5 mm diameter; Aarhus System Miniscrews, American Orthodontics, Washington, USA) were placed in posterior buccal interdental region. Each patient received only one miniscrew. Postoperative pain (PP) was determined using a 100-mm horizontal visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

State and total anxiety scores were significantly higher in the study group than in the control group (p = 0.009 and p = 0.011 respectively). The mean PP scores (SD) for control and study groups were 12.86 (14.22) and 12.8 (16.22), respectively. The results of Mann-Whitney U test showed no significant difference (p > 0.05). Participants' PP scores did not have a significant effect on state, trait, or total anxiety scores. There was a weak but significant positive correlation between trait anxiety and state anxiety scores in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Using an audiovisual method to inform patients about miniscrew placement increased anxiety levels but did not affect pain perception.

Effectiveness of Low-Level Laser Therapy during Tooth Movement: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The present study evaluated the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) by means of a diode laser in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement (OTM). After extraction of the first upper premolars for orthodontic purpose, 82 maxillary canines which needed distalization were analyzed in 41 enrolled patients (21 males, 20 females, mean age 13.4 ± 2.1 years). On all experimental sites, an orthodontic force of 50/N was applied by a nickel-titanium (NiTi) closed coil spring (G&H, Franklin, IN, USA) in order to obtain the space closure. Using a split mouth randomized design, the test side was treated using a diode laser (Wiser Laser Doctor Smile, Brendola, Italy) operating at 810 nm wavelength in continuous wave mode at both the buccal and palatal side on three points/side (distal, medial and mesial) (1 W output power, continuous wave of 66.7 J/cm², energy density of 8 J) at baseline and at 3, 7, and 14 days and every 15 days until the space closed. On the control side, the opposite selected canine was treated only using orthodontic traction. The primary outcome chosen was the overall time needed to complete the levelling and closing space, measured on a study cast. The secondary outcome chosen was the evaluation of pain levels related to tooth traction, using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), recorded at 3, 7, and 14 days after treatments. The mean space closures of the maxillary canines were comparable between groups [Test, 4.56 mm (95% CI 3.9-4.8); Control, 4.49 mm (95% CI 3.8-4.7), p = 0.456]. The laser group yielded less mean time [84.35 ± 12.34 days (95% CI 79.3-86)] to accomplish space closure compared to the control group [97.49 ± 11.44 days (91.7-102.3)] (p < 0.001). The test side showed a significant reduction in the average range of dental pain at 3 [Test, 5.41 (95% CI 5.1-5.6); Control, 7.23 (95% CI 6.9-7.6), p < 0.001], 7 [Test, 4.12 (95% CI 3.8-4.7); Control, 5.79 (95% CI 5.4-5.8), p < 0.001], and at 14 days [Test, 2.31 (95% CI 1.8-2.3); Control, 3.84 (95% CI 3.3-4.2), p < 0.001] after treatment (p < 0.001). This study demonstrates that the use of LLLT therapy was effective in accelerating tooth movement and reducing pain levels related to OTM.

Effect of a 5% naproxen patch on reducing pain caused by separators prior to fixed orthodontic treatment

Background

The pain involved in orthodontic treatments may involve inflammatory processes. This study evaluated the effect of using a naproxen patch for pain reduction in the separating stage of fixed orthodontic treatment.

Methods

In this double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial of 35 orthodontic patients (age: 14–19 years) who had pain during separator placement, each patient randomly placed naproxen and placebo patches in the first permanent molar region, in opposite quadrants of the same jaw. Patches were replaced every 8 hours until 3 days after separator placement. Patients recorded their pain perception at 2, 6, and 24 hours, and on days 2 (6 PM), 3 (10 AM and 6 PM), and 7 (10 AM and 6 PM), using a visual analog scale. Mean pain scores were compared for the two patches, and effects of sex and age thereon determined.

Results

Data from 29 patients (21 girls, eight boys) were analyzed. Mean pain values decreased over time for both patches (P < 0.001). Recorded pain did not differ significantly between the sexes (P = 0.059) or between those aged <16 and those ≥16 years (P = 0.106). Mean pain recorded with naproxen patches was statistically significantly less than that with placebo patches at all time points (P = 0.004).

Conclusion

The naproxen patch was more efficient than the placebo patch for reducing pain at all time points. The highest pain score was recorded at 6 hours, and the least pain was recorded at the 7^th day after separator placement.

Optimal management of orthodontic pain

Pain is an undesirable side effect of orthodontic tooth movement, which causes many patients to give up orthodontic treatment or avoid it altogether. The aim of this study was to investigate, through an analysis of the scientific literature, the best method for managing orthodontic pain. The methodological aspects involved careful definition of keywords and diligent search in databases of scientific articles published in the English language, without any restriction of publication date. We recovered 1281 articles. After the filtering and classification of these articles, 56 randomized clinical trials were selected. Of these, 19 evaluated the effects of different types of drugs for the control of orthodontic pain, 16 evaluated the effects of low-level laser therapy on orthodontic pain, and 21 evaluated other methods of pain control. Drugs reported as effective in orthodontic pain control included ibuprofen, paracetamol, naproxen sodium, aspirin, etoricoxib, meloxicam, piroxicam, and tenoxicam. Most studies report favorable outcomes in terms of alleviation of orthodontic pain with the use of low-level laser therapy. Nevertheless, we noticed that there is no consensus, both for the drug and for laser therapy, on the doses and clinical protocols most appropriate for orthodontic pain management. Alternative methods for orthodontic pain control can also broaden the clinician's range of options in the search for better patient care.

Pharmacological interventions for pain relief during orthodontic treatment

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common side effect of orthodontic treatment. It increases in proportion to the amount of force applied to the teeth, and the type of orthodontic appliance used can affect the intensity of the pain. Pain during orthodontic treatment has been shown to be the most common reason for people wanting to discontinue treatment, and has been ranked as the worst aspect of treatment. Although pharmacological methods of pain relief have been investigated, there remains some uncertainty among orthodontists about which painkillers are most suitable and whether pre-emptive analgesia is beneficial. We conducted this Cochrane Review to assess and summarize the international evidence relating to the effectiveness of analgesics for preventing this unwanted side effect associated with orthodontic treatment.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review are to determine:- the effectiveness of drug interventions for pain relief during orthodontic treatment; and- whether there is a difference in the analgesic effect provided by different types, forms and doses of analgesia taken during orthodontic treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 19 June 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL;the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 June 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 June 2017) and CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 19 June 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched on the 19 June 2017 for ongoing studies. We placed no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relating to pain control during orthodontic treatment. Pain could be measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS), numerical rating scale (NRS) or categorical scale.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results, agreed the studies to be included and extracted information from the included studies regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcomes, harms and results. We planned to resolve any discrepancies or disagreements through discussion. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 32 relevant RCTs, which included 3110 participants aged 9 to 34 years, 2348 of whom we were able to include in our analyses. Seventeen of the studies had more than two arms. We were able to use data from 12 trials in meta-analyses that compared analgesics versus control (no treatment or a placebo); nine that compared non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) versus paracetamol; and two that compared pre-emptive versus post-treatment ibuprofen for pain control following orthodontic treatment. One study provided data for the comparison of NSAIDs versus local anaesthetic.We found moderate-quality evidence that analgesics effectively reduced pain following orthodontic treatment when compared to no treatment or a placebo at 2 hours (mean difference (MD) -11.66 mm on a 0 to 100 mm VAS, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.15 to -7.17; 10 studies, 685 participants), 6 hours (MD -24.27 mm on a VAS, 95% CI -31.44 to -17.11; 9 studies, 535 participants) and 24 hours (MD -21.19 mm on a VAS, 95% CI -28.31 to -14.06; 12 studies, 1012 participants).We did not find any evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAID and paracetamol at 2, 6 or 24 hours (at 24 hours: MD -0.51, 95% CI -8.93 to 7.92; 9 studies, 734 participants; low-quality evidence).Very low-quality evidence suggested pre-emptive ibuprofen gave better pain relief at 2 hours than ibuprofen taken post treatment (MD -11.30, 95% CI -16.27 to -6.33; one study, 41 participants), however, the difference was no longer significant at 6 or 24 hours.A single study of 48 participants compared topical NSAIDs versus local anaesthetic and showed no evidence of a difference in the effectiveness of the interventions (very low-quality evidence).Use of rescue analgesia was poorly reported. The very low-quality evidence did not show evidence of a difference between participants taking ibuprofen and participants taking paracetamol (relative risk (RR) 1.5, 95% CI 0.6 to 3.6). Nor did we find evidence of a difference between groups in likelihood of requiring rescue analgesia when ibuprofen was taken pre-emptively compared to after treatment (RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.9).Adverse effects were identified in one study, with one participant developing a rash that required treatment with antihistamines. This was provisionally diagnosed as a hypersensitivity to paracetamol.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Analgesics are more effective at reducing pain following orthodontic treatment than placebo or no treatment. Low-quality evidence did not show a difference in effectiveness between systemic NSAIDs compared with paracetamol, or topical NSAIDs compared with local anaesthetic. More high-quality research is needed to investigate these comparisons, and to evaluate pre-emptive versus post-treatment administration of analgesics.

Effects of low-level laser irradiation on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement and associated pain with self-ligating brackets

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of low-level laser irradiation applied at 3-week intervals on orthodontic tooth movement and pain associated with orthodontic tooth movement using self-ligating brackets.

METHODS

Twenty-two patients (11 male, 11 female; mean age, 19.8 ± 3.1 years) with Angle Class II Division 1 malocclusion were recruited for this split-mouth clinical trial; they required extraction of maxillary first premolars bilaterally. After leveling and alignment with self-ligating brackets (SmartClip SL3; 3M Unitek, St Paul, Minn), a 150-g force was applied to retract the canines bilaterally using 6-mm nickel-titanium closed-coil springs on 0.019 x 0.025-in stainless steel archwires. A gallium-aluminum-arsenic diode laser (iLas; Biolase, Irvine, Calif) with a wavelength of 940 nm in a continuous mode (energy density, 7.5 J/cm²/point; diameter of optical fiber tip, 0.04 cm²) was applied at 5 points buccally and palatally around the canine roots on the experimental side; the other side was designated as the placebo. Laser irradiation was applied at baseline and then repeated after 3 weeks for 2 more consecutive follow-up visits. Questionnaires based on the numeric rating scale were given to the patients to record their pain intensity for 1 week. Impressions were made at each visit before the application of irradiation at baseline and the 3 visits. Models were scanned with a CAD/CAM scanner (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland).

RESULTS

Canine retraction was significantly greater (1.60 ± 0.38 mm) on the experimental side compared with the placebo side (0.79 ± 0.35 mm) (P <0.05). Pain was significantly less on the experimental side only on the first day after application of LLLI and at the second visit (1.4 ± 0.82 and 1.4 ± 0.64) compared with the placebo sides (2.2 ± 0.41 and 2.4 ± 1.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-level laser irradiation applied at 3-week intervals can accelerate orthodontic tooth movement and reduce the pain associated with it.

The Analgesic Efficacy of 5% Naproxen Gel for Pain Associated with Orthodontic Separator Placement: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial

Background and Objectives

Several methods have been proposed to relieve orthodontic pain, each with its advantages and disadvantages. This study aimed at assessing the efficacy of 5% naproxen gel to relieve pain associated with orthodontic separator placement.

Methods

This double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted on 41 patients between 14 and 20 years old complaining of pain due to placement of orthodontic elastic separators. Five-percent naproxen and placebo gels were applied randomly in a spilt mouth design to the permanent first molars area. The gels were applied every 8 hours for 3 days after placement of separators. Patients recorded their level of pain at determined time points using a 0 to 100 visual analog scale. Normal distribution was assessed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Paired samples t test was used to compare the mean pain score between the two gels. Multi-factorial repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared the severity of pain based on gender and age.

Results

Out of 41 patients, 34 completed this trial (23 females and 11 males). The mean pain score significantly decreased over time in both sides and for both genders (P < 0.001). Pain score was not significantly different between males and females or between patients < 16 and ≥ 16 years of age. The mean pain score was significantly lower in the naproxen group at all-time points (P < 0.001). Naproxen gel showed significantly higher analgesic efficacy when compared to the placebo at all-time points. The highest and lowest pain score was noted at 2 hours and at 7 days after separator placement, respectively.

Conclusions

Using 5% naproxen gel is an effective method for reducing orthodontic pain following elastic separator placement.

The effect of a lidocaine/prilocaine topical anesthetic on pain and discomfort associated with orthodontic elastomeric separator placement

Background

The initial placement of orthodontic elastomeric separators can be uncomfortable and painful. Therefore, it is important to relieve this disturbing sensation to create a discomfort or pain-free orthodontic visit. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a lidocaine/prilocaine topical anesthetic on pain and discomfort associated with the placement of orthodontic elastomeric separators.

Methods

Fifty subjects aging between 20–35 years were included in this study. In the maxillary arch, a lidocaine/prilocaine topical anesthetic was placed around the ginigval margins of the premolar and molar on side. On the other side, a placebo agent was placed around the ginigval margins of the premolar and molar. After two minutes, an elastomeric separator was placed between the premolar and molar on both sides. The subjects were then asked to report their findings on a Verbal Scale and a Visual Analogue Scale every second minute for a period of 10 min. The subjects were also given a questionnaire to evaluate the overall impression on the topical anesthetic use.

Results

The overall mean discomfort/pain score was found to be significantly lower (p < 0.001) with the topical anesthetic than with the placebo. Repeated measures ANOVA with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction determined that mean pain scores were statistically significantly low with the 10-min time duration (F_(1.54,42.2) = 40.7, p = 0.001), with an estimated grand mean (8.37, 95% CI 6.75–9.98). The questionnaire responses revealed that 87% of the subjects reported an overall satisfaction and agreement with the topical anesthetic than with the placebo or no difference (13%) after the initial separator placement.

Conclusions

The discomfort and pain resulting from the initial placement of orthodontic elastomeric separators can be significantly reduced with the lidocaine/prilocaine topical anesthetic.

Recent advances in topical anesthesia

Topical anesthetics act on the peripheral nerves and reduce the sensation of pain at the site of application. In dentistry, they are used to control local pain caused by needling, placement of orthodontic bands, the vomiting reflex, oral mucositis, and rubber-dam clamp placement. Traditional topical anesthetics contain lidocaine or benzocaine as active ingredients and are used in the form of solutions, creams, gels, and sprays. Eutectic mixtures of local anesthesia cream, a mixture of various topical anesthetics, has been reported to be more potent than other anesthetics. Recently, new products with modified ingredients and application methods have been introduced into the market. These products may be used for mild pain during periodontal treatment, such as scaling. Dentists should be aware that topical anesthetics, although rare, might induce allergic reactions or side effects as a result of an overdose. Topical anesthetics are useful aids during dental treatment, as they reduce dental phobia, especially in children, by mitigating discomfort and pain.

Effect of 5% benzocaine gel on relieving pain caused by fixed orthodontic appliance activation. A double-blind randomized controlled trial

AIM

To compare the effectiveness of 5% benzocaine gel and placebo gel on reducing pain caused by fixed orthodontic appliance activation.

SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION

Thirty subjects (15-25 years) undergoing fixed orthodontics.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and cross-over clinical trial study was conducted. Subjects were asked to apply a placebo gel and 5% benzocaine gel, exchangeable in two consecutive appointments, twice a day for 3 days and mark their level of pain on a VAS scale. The pain severity was evaluated by means of Mann-Whitney U-test for comparing two gel groups, Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test for overall differences and post hoc test of Dunnett for paired multiple comparisons. p-value was assigned <0.05.

RESULTS

The overall mean value of pain intensity for benzocaine and placebo gels was 0.89 and 1.15, respectively. The Mann-Whitney U-test indicated that there was no significant difference between overall pain in both groups (mean difference = 0.258 p ˂ 0.21). For both groups, pain intensity was significantly lower at 2, 6 and 24 h compared with pain experienced at days 2, 3 and 7.

CONCLUSION

Benzocaine gel caused a decrease in pain perception at 2 h compared with placebo gel. Peak pain intensity was at 2 h for placebo gel and at 6 h for benzocaine gel, followed by a decline in pain perception from that point to day 7 for both gels.

A double-blind, randomized clinical study to determine the efficacy of benzocaine 10% on histamine-induced pruritus and UVB-light induced slight sunburn pain

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to explore the efficacy of the topical application of 10% benzocaine for treating pruritus and pain as compared to vehicle ointment.

METHODS

Twenty male subjects were treated in a randomized double-blind fashion with the investigational medicinal product (IMPD) and vehicle. Immediately after the injection of 100 µg histamine on both arms, subjects received topical treatment and pruritus was subsequently assessed with visual analogue scale (VASpruritus) and Eppendorfer questionnaire. Ultraviolet B radiation (UVB) was administered on the back to induce slight sunburn. Twelve hours after UVB application again the IMPD was applied on the right or left upper back and vehicle on the other side and pain related to sunburn was measured with VASpain and pressure algometry.

RESULTS

A trend towards better reduction of pruritus was shown for benzocaine in VASpruritus. For the VASpain significant differences in group comparison (p = 0.02) were observed. Algometer measurements showed onset of pain reduction in the verum group after 20 min whereas in the vehicle-treated area pain relief occurred only after 60 min after application.

CONCLUSIONS

The topically administered ointment containing 10% benzocaine was found superior over vehicle for treating pain, but not pruritus.

Comparison of two different depigmentation techniques for treatment of hyperpigmented gingiva

INTRODUCTION

Demand for cosmetic therapy of gingival melanin pigmentation is common. Re-pigmentation after gingival depigmentation is an important point. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of surgical scraping and electrosurgery on postoperative pain, healing and recurrence of pigmentation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifteen patients with esthetic concern related to black gums were selected and treated by surgical scraping with respect to right quadrant and electrosurgery with respect to left quadrant. Patients were recalled post-operatively to evaluate healing and recurrence of pigmentation. Each patient was asked to complete the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) index cards 2 and 24 hours postoperatively.

RESULTS

In the initial post-operative period, VAS index cards showed that the discomfort and pain level associated with electrosurgery was significantly higher than conventional scalpel surgery (P < 0.05). Clinically delayed healing was observed in the electrosurgically treated site. Electrosurgery showed better results as compared to epithelial excision for recurrence of pigments. At the end of 15 months, 7 sites in the scalpel excision group showed recurrence, whereas only 4 site showed recurrence in the electrosurgically treated group.

CONCLUSION

The methods used here produced desired results and above all, the patients were satisfied with the outcome. Increased pain level and clinically delayed healing was associated with electrosurgery as compared to scalpel surgery, whereas repigmentation occurred more frequently in scalpel-treated sites.

Low-level laser therapy for orthodontic pain: a systematic review

This review aimed to evaluate the clinical outcome of different lasers management on orthodontic pain. Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2014) and MEDLINE (1966-2014.7) were searched to collect randomized controlled trials on lasers for orthodontic pain. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were systematically evaluated. The Cochrane Collaboration tools RevMan5.1.7 and GRADEpro 3.6 were used in this systematic review and meta-analysis. As a result, 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying on low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for orthodontic pain control were included. Meta-analysis and risk of bias assessment were implemented using RevMan5.1.7, and level of evidence assessments was measured by GRADEpro 3.6. In the outcome of the score of the most painful day, the comparison of laser versus placebo (pain associated with tooth movement) demonstrated that LLLT reduced the pain score significantly compared with placebo groups (MD = -4.39, 95% CI range -5.9--2.88, P < 0.00001). In the same way, the most painful day was significantly brought forward in laser versus control group (MD = -0.42, 95% CI range -0.74--0.10, P = 0.009). Furthermore, the outcome of the end of pain day showed a trend of pain termination earlier in laser versus control and placebo groups, but without statistical significance (MD = -1.37, 95% CI range -3.37-0.64, P = 0.18 and MD = -1.04, 95% CI range -4.22-2.15, P = 0.52). However, for the reason of downgrade factors, all the GRADE level of evidences of eight comparisons for three outcomes showed a very low quality. Therefore, for the methodological shortcomings and risk of bias of RCTs included, insufficient evidence was submitted to judge whether LLLT was effective in relieving orthodontic pain. Further and more perfect researches should be done in order to recommend LLLT as a routine method for orthodontic pain.

The effect of diode superpulsed low-level laser therapy on experimental orthodontic pain caused by elastomeric separators: a randomized controlled clinical trial

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of diode superpulsed low-level laser therapy (SLLLT) in reducing experimentally induced orthodontic pain. Overall, 120 subjects (23.01 ± 1.39 years) were enrolled for a clinical trial. Subjects were randomly assigned to upper (U, N = 60) or lower (L, N = 60) jaw groups. All subjects received 4 elastomeric separators mesial and distal to the upper (U group) or lower (L group) right first molar and bicuspids. Each subject of the U and L groups was randomly assigned to laser (Ul, N = 20 and Ll, N = 20), placebo (Up, N = 20 and Lp, N = 20) or control (Uc, N = 20 and Lc, N = 20) sub-groups. Subjects in laser groups received a single GaAs diode SLLLT application (910 nm, 160 mW, beam diameter of 8 mm, applied for 340 s) immediately after placing orthodontic separators. Placebo groups received a simulated SLLLT and controls did not receive any therapy. All participants compiled a survey on pain duration and a 100-mm visual analogue scale immediately after the separators placement and after 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, and 96 h. Pain intensity of laser groups was significantly lower compared to placebo and control groups (p = 0.0001). In the laser group, 70% of subjects felt pain, while in the placebo and control groups all subjects felt pain (p = 0.0001). The end of pain occurred earlier in laser compared to placebo and control groups (p = 0.021). A single-diode SLLLT application appeared to be effective in reducing the intensity and duration of experimentally induced orthodontic pain and could be used in daily orthodontic practice.