Effects of single-dose, low-level laser therapy on pain associated with the initial stage of fixed orthodontic treatment: A randomized clinical trial

Low-level laser therapy and laser acupuncture therapy for pain relief after initial archwire placement : A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Pain is among the most unpleasant experience during fixed orthodontic therapy. This study compared the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and laser acupuncture therapy (LAT) in pain reduction after initial archwire placement.

METHODS

This randomized, parallel-group, single-blind clinical trial included 60 female patients who required four premolar extractions to relieve crowding. The subjects were randomly designated into four groups of 15. After placement of the initial orthodontic archwire, patients in group 1 took ibuprofen (400 mg), whereas those in group 2 received LLLT (808 nm, 200 mW, 2 J/cm2) on both buccal and lingual sides of the teeth. In group 3 (LAT), the laser (808 nm, 200 mW, 24 J/cm2) was applied bilaterally to acupuncture points (SI 18, ST 6, LI 4, SJ 2, and SJ 5). Subjects in group 4 received placebo laser treatment. Patients were requested to record the intensity of spontaneous pain, pain while biting with anterior teeth, and pain while biting with posterior teeth at different times using a visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The intensity of spontaneous and biting pain increased up to the first or second days following initial archwire placement and diminished to a negligible value by the seventh day. No significant difference was found between the study groups concerning spontaneous and biting pain at any timepoint of investigation (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

With the protocols used in the study, low-level laser therapy and laser acupuncture therapy were as effective as ibuprofen and placebo laser treatment for pain reduction in orthodontic patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

IRCT, IRCT20200622047886N1. Registered 2020-06-29; https://www.irct.ir/trial/49121.

Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Photobiomodulation on Pain Reduction in Individuals Undergoing Segmental Retraction Using a Closing Loop: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Pain following orthodontic treatment is a common reason for apprehension and treatment discontinuation. Research on modalities to control pain in orthodontic patients has gained special attention. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is studied as an alternative pain management modality free of the adverse effects of analgesic medications.

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the effectiveness of photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) for pain control following the activation of a closing loop for canine retraction.

METHOD

This is a split-mouth, placebo-controlled, single-blinded randomized clinical trial that evaluated 16 patients who need canine retraction using closing loops. Two maxillary quadrants were allotted into test and control groups using the coin toss method. In the test group, a low-intensity laser with 810 nm wavelength for 60 seconds in pulsated non-contact mode was used in the buccal, palatal, mesial, and distal regions of the canine immediately after activating the loop. The control site received placebo radiation. The pain level was recorded 2, 24, 48, and 72 hours after intervention in the control and test groups using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The test and control groups were compared using Student's t-test. A p-value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0 (Released 2017; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States).

RESULT

Both groups had a significant statistical difference in the pain score. The laser group showed a statistically significant lower pain score compared to the control group at all time points.

CONCLUSION

Photobiomodulation by 810 nm 300 mW diode laser can effectively reduce pain following the retraction of maxillary canines.

The effect of physical interventions on pain control after orthodontic treatment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Pain is a frequent adverse reaction during orthodontic treatment, which can significantly reduce treatment compliance and compromise the expected treatment effect. Physical interventions have been used to alleviate pain after orthodontic treatment, but their effectiveness is controversial. This study used a network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of various physical interventions typically used in managing pain after orthodontic treatment, with a view to provide evidence-based recommendations for representative interventions for orthodontic pain relief during peak pain intensity.

METHODS

A systematic search of six electronic databases, from their respective inception dates, was conducted to identify relevant literature on the efficacy of various typical physical interventions for managing pain after orthodontic treatment. Literature screening was performed according to the Cochrane System Evaluator's Manual. Stata 16.0 was used to assess heterogeneity, inconsistency, publication bias, and sensitivity to generate an evidence network diagram and conduct a network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 771 articles were reviewed to collect literature on interventions, including low-level laser therapy (LLLT), vibration, acupuncture, and chewing. Of these, 28 studies using a visual analog scale (VAS) as an outcome indicator were included. The results showed that LLLT, vibration, acupuncture, and chewing effectively relieved the pain symptoms in patients after orthodontic treatment. At 24 h post-treatment, LLLT (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] = 80.8) and vibration (SUCRA = 71.1) were the most effective interventions. After 48 h of treatment, acupuncture (SUCRA = 89.6) showed a definite advantage as the best intervention.

CONCLUSION

LLLT, vibration, acupuncture, and chewing can alleviate pain associated with orthodontic treatment. Among these interventions, acupuncture was found to be the most effective at 48 h after orthodontic treatment. In addition, acupuncture demonstrated long-lasting and stable pain-relieving effects. However, further studies are needed to determine the most suitable equipment-specific parameters for acupuncture in relieving pain associated with orthodontic treatment.

Pain Assessment and Need for Analgesics after Scaling and Root Planing in Patients with Stage II and Stage III Periodontitis

Background and Objectives: The most common treatment procedure for periodontitis and gingivitis is scaling and root planing, which is perceived as a painful dental treatment. The current study aimed to assess pain perception and analgesics consumption after scaling and root planing (SRP) in patients with stage II and stage III periodontitis. Materials and Methods: Before starting the SRP, all the periodontal parameters, such as probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and clinical attachment level (CAL), were measured. The anxiety level of the patients was also assessed using the modified dental anxiety scale (MDAS) questionnaire. Pain perception of the patients was recorded with the visual analog scale (VAS) after performing the SRP. Patients were asked to mark their pain level on the VAS sheet after two hours, four hours, eight hours, 24 h, and 48 h after the periodontal treatment. The following cut-off points were used for the pain intensity in the VAS: 0 = no pain, 1-4 = mild pain, 4-6 = moderate pain, and 7-10 = severe pain. Patients were advised to take analgesics if the pain was intolerable. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to conduct the association of all dependent variables and the pain perception of patients. A nonparametric Friedman test was conducted to assess pain perception at different times. Results: A total of 52 patients including 32 males and 20 females participated in the current study, with a mean age of 43.10 ± 12.33 years. Multivariate analyses showed that MDAS and analgesic consumption is significantly associated with pain perception. Other clinical variables are not associated with pain perception. The Friedman test exhibited that pain perception is significantly associated (p < 0.05) with time. Conclusions: Analgesic consumption and anxiety level are significantly associated with pain perception after SRP treatment.

Efficiency of photobiomodulation on accelerating the tooth movement in the alignment phase of orthodontic treatment-A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

To investigate the efficiency of photobiomodulation on accelerating the tooth movement in the alignment phase of orthodontic treatment.

Materials and methods

The data search was performed with PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. Randomized clinical trials and controlled clinical trials evaluating the efficiency of photobiomodulation on accelerating tooth movement in the alignment phase were selected, and the characteristics of the included studies were collected in a customized data form. Data analysis was conducted by the random-effects model after risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed.

Results

Five randomized clinical trials and three controlled clinical trials were included in the final analysis. All included studies reported positive results except the study of Shehawy et al. The results of the analysis showed that photobiomodulation significantly increased the rate of tooth movement and reduced the treatment duration, compared with the control group. Although the heterogeneity was large among the included studies, it was improved after subgroup analysis.

Conclusions

This systematic review offered evidence that photobiomodulation can accelerate tooth movement in alignment procedures and reduce treatment time. Future studies are needed to find the best PBM protocol for orthodontic practice.

Efficacy of Low-Level Laser Therapy in Reducing Pain in the Initial Stages of Orthodontic Treatment

Purpose

There is no consensus about the mechanism and efficacy in alleviating pain of the lower-level laser therapy (LLLT) during orthodontic treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the LLLT effectiveness clinically in reducing pain caused by orthodontic movement that occurs in the early stages of treatment.

Methods

The sample consisted of 54 patients in need of orthodontic treatment divided into two groups. A 28 experimental patients group (initial mean age: 26.84 years old) was undergone gallium-aluminum-arsenide infrared laser application on 12 points for each tooth immediately after the installation of the first alignment archwire, and a 26 patients control group (initial mean age: 29.13 years old) was undergone to no pain control intervention at all. Pain intensity was measured by using a visual analog scale, which was marked pain level (mm) reported in 06, 24, 48, and 72 hours. The perception of pain (beginning, peak, decline, and absence) was evaluated by filling up a questionnaire. To compare the intensity and perception of pain between groups, a nonparametric Mann-Whitney has been performed.

Results

The experimental group showed levels (mm) at 6 (p < 0.001), 24 (p=0.004), and 48 hours (p=0.007) and perception of pain (hours) in the peak (p=0.026), decline (p=0.025), and absence (p=0.008) significantly lower compared to the group control.

Conclusion

Low-level laser therapy is effective in reducing pain severity caused by orthodontic forces activation, and it promotes the analgesic action lasting effect during the most painful feeling time.

The protocol of low-level laser therapy in orthodontic practice: A scoping review of literature

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been widely investigated as an adjunct technique for orthodontic treatment due to photobiomodulation effect. LLLT appears to be supportive for an orthodontic practice in terms of tooth movement acceleration, pain relief, and root resorption management. The decrease in these adverse effects will enhance the compliance in orthodontic patients, which could positively impact treatment outcomes. However, there seemed to be inconsistency in the impact of LLLT as well as its laser and treatment parameters. This scoping review aimed to evaluate the impact of different irradiation parameters on tooth movement acceleration, pain relief, and root resorption as well as to construct a protocol of LLLT in orthodontic practice. The search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, and the reference lists of identified articles. The last search was conducted on October 10, 2021 to identify experiments in humans regarding the application of LLLT as noninvasive treatment in orthodontic practice published between 2010 and 2021. However, they were excluded if they were not clinical research, if they did not report the source of laser, or if they were not relevant to tooth movement, pain perception, and root resorption, or if they were not available in English or in full-text. Following the systematic search and selection process, 60 articles were included in this review. A majority of included articles were published in the past few years. The findings of this review supported the application of LLLT in orthodontic practice with purposes of tooth movement acceleration and pain reduction. The positive impact of LLLT on root resorption had not been clearly evident yet. As this review demonstrated heterogeneity of both laser and treatment parameters, further research should be required to ensure the effectiveness of its specific parameters in orthodontic practice.

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.

Biostimulatory Effects of Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound on Rate of Orthodontic Tooth Movement and Associated Pain, Applied at 3-Week Intervals: A Split-Mouth Study

Objective

Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) is a noninvasive modality to stimulate bone remodeling (BR) and the healing of hard and soft tissues. This research evaluates the biostimulatory effect of LIPUS on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) and associated pain, when applied at 3-week intervals.

Methods

Twenty-two patients (11 males and 11 females; mean age 19.18 ± 2.00 years) having Angle's Class II division 1 malocclusion needing bilateral extractions of maxillary first bicuspids were recruited for this split-mouth randomized clinical trial. After the initial stage of alignment and leveling with contemporary edgewise MBT (McLaughlin-Bennett-Trevisi) prescription brackets (Ortho Organizers, Carlsbad, Calif) of 22 mil, followed by extractions of premolars bilaterally, 6 mm nickel-titanium spring was used to retract the canines separately by applying 150 g force on 0.019 × 0.025-in stainless steel working archwires. LIPUS (1.1 MHz frequency and 30 mW/cm² intensity output) was applied for 20 minutes extraorally and reapplied after 3 weeks for 2 more successive visits over the root of maxillary canine on the experimental side whereas the other side was placebo. A numerical rating scale- (NRS-) based questionnaire was given to the patients on each visit to record their weekly pain experience. Impressions were also made at each visit before the application of LIPUS (T1, T2, and T3). Models were scanned with a CAD/CAM scanner (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland). Mann-Whitney U test was applied for comparison of canine movement and pain intensity between both the groups.

Results

No significant difference in the rate of canine movement was found among the experimental (0.90 mm ± 0.33 mm) and placebo groups (0.81 mm ± 0.32 mm). There was no difference in pain reduction between experimental and placebo groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Single-dose application of LIPUS at 3-week intervals is ineffective in stimulating the OTM and reducing associated treatment pain.

Oral Health Impact Profile in Orthodontic Patients with Ectopic Canine: A Prospective Clinical Intervention of Four Treatment Modalities

This study evaluated the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in Saudi subjects with ectopic canine, severe crowding, and class I normal occlusion. Moreover, we assessed the differences among orthodontic treatment modalities (OTM) in the ectopic canine group. Study design: Retrospective and prospective evaluation. A total of 96 subjects were assessed for OHRQoL using the Oral Health Impact Profile, English version (OHIP-16). Initial comparison of the baseline data of ectopic canine subjects was made with severe crowding (>8 mm) and class I normal occlusion with the matched number and age of the subjects in later groups. Moreover, a comparison of OHIP-16 scores among four OTM in the ectopic canine group, baseline, 1 day, and 28 days after treatment were performed. OHIP-16 scores of ectopic canine, severe crowding, and class I normal occlusion group were 33.06, 33.09, and 26.43, respectively. Subjects with ectopic canine and severe crowding reported a significantly greater negative impact in terms of embarrassment, avoiding smiling, and lack of self-confidence. OHRQoL had no significant changes among the four OTM groups (p > 0.05). Untreated malocclusion had a significant negative impact on OHRQoL. The negative impact was seen in several domains 1 day after treatment, and gradual improvement was noted 28 days after treatment.

The Use of Technology in the Management of Orthodontic Treatment-Related Pain

Orthodontic pain is one of the negatives associated with fixed orthodontic treatment that cannot be avoided. This pain usually comes around the wire placement period and gradually decreases once the endogenous analgesic mechanisms start functioning. Over the years, several treatment modalities have been utilized for relief from orthodontic pain, and these include mechanical, behavior modification, and pharmacological methods. However, in the last decade, there are several newer methods employing the use of technology that have come up and are being used for alleviating pain. From computerized indirect bonding to virtual treatment planning, technology has slowly become a vital part of an orthodontist's repertoire. The digital age is here, and orthodontics must embrace the use of technology to help improve the quality of life of patients.

Low-level laser therapy effectiveness in reducing initial orthodontic archwire placement pain in premolars extraction cases: a single-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial

Background

The objective of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) effectiveness in spontaneous and chewing pain reduction following initial orthodontic archwire placement.

Methods

26 patients (mean age 20.07 ± 3.13 years) with maxillary Little’s Irregularity Index (LII) of 7 mm or more that indicates first maxillary premolars extraction and no medications intake were eligible for this trial. Patients were randomly assigned with 1:1 ratio using simple randomization technique to receive either LLL or placebo treatment. Blinding was applicable for patients only. In the laser group, patients received a single LLL dose (wavelength 830 nm, energy 2 J/point) in four points (2 buccal, 2 palatal) for each maxillary anterior tooth root. Patients in the placebo group had the same laser application procedure without emitting the laser beam. Patients were asked to score spontaneous and chewing pain intensity by filling out a questionnaire with a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) after 1, 6, 24, 48, and 72 h of treatment application. Independent t-test was used to compare the mean pain scores between the laser and placebo groups for both spontaneous and chewing pain at each studied time point.

Results

No dropout occurred so the results of the 26 patients were statistically analyzed. Despite some clinical differences observed between the two groups, no statistical significance was found for each studied time point (p > 0.05) for both spontaneous and chewing pain except after 72 h for chewing pain with a VAS score of (18.84 ± 13.44) mm for the laser group compared to (38.15 ± 27.06) mm for the placebo group.

Conclusions

LLLT, with the suggested parameters, is not effective in pain reduction following initial orthodontic archwire placement.

Trial registration

Name of the registry:Clinicaltrials.gov

Trial registration number:NCT02568436.

Date of registration: 26 September 2015 ‘Retrospectively registered’.

Use of Laser Systems in Orthodontics

Laser systems have been used in the practice of dentistry for >35 years. Laser systems have so many advantages, such as increase patient cooperation, reduce the duration of treatment time, and help the orthodontists to enhance the design of a patient's smile to improve treatment efficacy, and the success of orthodontic treatments can also be improved by diminishing the orthodontic pain and the discomfort of the patients. Laser systems also have some disadvantages, such as cost, large space requirements for some types, and high-risk potential for physician and patient if not used at the appropriate wavelength and power density, that is why before incorporating lasers into clinical practice, the physician must fully understand the basic science, safety protocol, and risks associated with them. Lasers have many applications in orthodontics, including accelerating tooth movement, bonding and debonding processes, pain reduction, bone regeneration, etching procedures, increase mini-implant stability, soft tissue procedures (gingivectomy, frenectomy, operculectomy, papilla flattening, uncovering temporary anchorage devices, ablation of aphthous ulcerations, and exposure of impacted teeth), fiberotomy, scanning systems, and welding procedures. In reviewing the literature on the use of laser in orthodontics, many studies have been conducted. The purpose of the present study was to give information about the use of laser in the field of orthodontics, the effects of laser during the postoperative period, and its advantages and disadvantages and to provide general information about the requirements to be considered during the use of laser.

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.

Laser-Assisted Orthodontic Tooth Movement in Saudi Population: A Prospective Clinical Intervention of Low-Level Laser Therapy in the 1st Week of Pain Perception in Four Treatment Modalities

Background

This first-in-human study in Saudi orthodontic patients has evaluated the role of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in pain perception (PP). The outcome of single application of LLLT with 4 different treatment modalities (TM) on PP are evaluated following orthodontic bracket bonding on maxilla.

Materials and Methods

A prospective clinical intervention with implementation of parallel technique in each group, 32 orthodontic patients with ectopic canine requiring fixed orthodontic appliance were enrolled and randomly allocated to the 4 groups: LLLT + self-ligating (SL) bracket, LLLT + conventional (Conv.) bracket, non-LLLT + SL bracket, and non-LLLT + Conv. bracket. Orthodontic bracket bonding from 1st molar to 1st molar and superelastic 0.012 inch NiTi were applied for the maxilla. For each patient, maxillary 1st molar to molar received a single application of LLLT using a 940 nm Ga-Al-As laser device on 5 different points labially/buccally and palatally. Main outcome measure was the degree of PP score during the 1st week of orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) after 4 hours, 24 hours, 3 days, and 7 days of both LLLT and non-LLLT treatment applications. A questionnaire with an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) was used for PP.

Results

Mean ± SD of PP in the LLLT + SL group was 3.33 ± 1.4, 3.58 ± 1.06, 2.31 ± 0.67, and 1.89 ± 0.54 in 4 hours, 24 hours, 3 days, and 7 days, respectively. Compared to all 4 TM groups, LLLT groups showed better PP. More statistically significant differences were found in LLLT groups. No harms were encountered.

Limitations

The intervention provider and the patient were not blinded to the intervention.

Conclusion

The LLLT + SL group revealed significantly promising benefits on PP during OTM.

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

Introduction:

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

Materials and Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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