Objectives: The objectives were to evaluate the intensity of pain perceived 24 hours following insertion of fixed orthodontic appliance components i-e separators, bands and brackets. Methods: This cross-sectional study conducted at a Dental College in Karachi (July 2017-March 2018) investigated the amount of pain perceived during different stages of fixed orthodontic treatment. The inclusion criteria were healthy individuals without systemic disease, age 13-26 years, fixed orthodontic treatment candidates having healthy permanent first molars. The exclusion criteria were missing permanent first molars, patients requiring brass wire separators instead of elastomeric separators and molar tubes instead of bands, ongoing or previous periodontal disease and syndromic patients. Pain intensity was assessed in ninety eight patients using a Numeric Rating scale (NRS) at baseline (T0) before insertion, and 24 hours after insertion (T1) of a component. This procedure was repeated six times, twice each for separators, bands and brackets. Scoring was done on the NRS from 0 to 10 where 0 indicated no pain and 10 indicated worst pain possible. Results: A significant difference in perceived pain was found between baseline and after 24 hours of placement of all components (P-value 0.000). Odds ratio indicated that males were at a greater risk to feel pain than females at baseline and after 24 hours of insertion of all components. Mann-Whitney U test showed that the most painful components at baseline were bands (Mean value=0.56) and after 24 hours were brackets (Mean value 6.25). Conclusions: Significant increase in pain was noted 24 hours after insertion of separators, bands and brackets. The most painful components were bands at baseline and brackets after 24 hours of insertion. There were no significant variations in pain perception based on age. However, males perceived higher pain than females both at baseline and after 24 hours. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.2.619 How to cite this:Jawaid M, Qadeer TA, Fahim MF. Pain perception of orthodontic treatment – A cross-sectional study. Pak J Med Sci. 2020;36(2):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.2.619 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

No abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the mean collum angle of maxillary central incisor and to compare it between high angle and low angle patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. METHODOLOGY: This cross-sectional, observational study was conducted using lateral cephalometric radiographs of 61 class II division 1 patients (comprised 32 males, 29 females, age range 13 to 30 years) from the record files of patients inducted for Orthodontic management from June 2020 till August 2020 at the Department of Orthodontics, Sindh Institute of Oral Health Science, Jinnah Sindh Medical University, Karachi, Pakistan. The sample was divided on the basis of Vertical Analysis (angulation of mandibular plane) into high and low angle cases. Collum angle was measured using the angulation of the Maxillary Central Incisor (MCI). Student t-test was used to compare the mean difference of the collum angle between skeletal vertical malocclusions. RESULTS: Mean value of the collum angle for high angle (Vertical Growth pattern) cases were mean ± standard deviation (4.35°±1.49°) while for low angle groups (Horizontal Growth pattern) were (2.41°±1.60°). CONCLUSION: There Collum angle of permanent maxillary central incisors differ significantly (p<0.001) among high angle and Low angle malocclusions cases (n=61) and showed pronounced axial bending in Class II division 1 incisors with high angle (4.35° ± 1.49°) as compared to low angle malocclusion (2.41° ± 1.60°). KEYWORDS: Collum Angle, Maxillary Central Incisor, Orthodontic Treatment, High Angle, Low Angle.

Objective: To analyze the learning styles of undergraduate medical, dental and DPT (Department of physical therapy) students using the VARK questionnaire. Study Design and Setting: This cross sectional questionnaire based clinical study was conducted on 278 undergraduate students at Bahria University of Medical and Dental College in Karachi. Methodology: 150 medical, 100 dental and 28 DPT students were asked to complete VARK (Visual, Auditory, Read-write and Kinesthetic) questionnaire and their learning preferences were studied. Percentages were formulated and outcomes of each group were paralleled to conclude the result. The data was assessed using SPSS software, version 23. Statistical associations among MBBS, BDS and DPT students and gender preferences were made using chi square analysis and comparison between academic years was made with Fisher’s exact test. P<0.05 was considered significant. Results: Our result showed that 76.3% preferred unimodal style followed by bimodal (18.3%) and trimodal (5.4%). Kinesthetic (40%) was the most preferred method followed by aural (36%). There was no preferential shift with gender or academic year variation. Conclusion: According to our study, most of the undergraduate medical, dental and DPT students prefer unimodal method of learning despite of educational, gender and academic variation in the sample. None of the students preferred the quadmodal learning style. Kinesthetic was the most preferred unimodal preference.

Orthodontic alignment of un-erupted dilacerated teeth is challenging, as the bent roots resist forces applied to move them through the bone. Various treatment options are now available to treat this condition including providing prosthesis after extractions and apicectomies. However, to maintain alveolar bone in the area of the un-erupted tooth, especially if the involved tooth is in the anterior segment, the ideal treatment would be to try and bring the tooth in the arch orthodontically. Treatment requires increased time duration, compliance of the patient, and consistent force mechanics. This case report is of a 9-year boy with un-erupted and dilacerated teeth. Orthodontic treatment of prolonged duration was provided to bring these teeth into the arch, improving the esthetics and function.