Traumatic ulcers and pain during orthodontic treatment

Kvam, Einar; Gjerdet, Nils Roar; Bondevik, Olav

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0528.1987.tb00493.x

Cited by 109 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding agrees with some previous studies, 9 but differs from others. 5,24 It is likely that the different methodologies used among studies to assess condition-specific impacts may explain these differences. Since we used a psychometrically valid and reliable condition-specific OHRQoL measure, 11,12 our results are only comparable to those reported by Mandall et al 9 who also found no influence of gender on impacts of fixed orthodontic appliances.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts on Daily Performances Related to Wearing Orthodontic Appliances

Bernabé

Sheiham

Oliveira

2008

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess the prevalence, intensity, and extent of the impacts on daily performances related to wearing different types of orthodontic appliances. Materials and Methods: A total of 1657 students, 15 to 16 years old, were randomly selected from those attending all secondary schools in Bauru, Sã o Paulo, Brazil. Only those wearing orthodontic appliances at the time of the survey were included. Face-to-face structured interviews were done to collect information about impacts on quality of life related to wearing orthodontic appliances, using the Oral Impact on Daily Performances (OIDP). Adolescents were also clinically examined to assess the type of orthodontic appliance they were wearing. Comparisons, by type of orthodontic appliance and covariables, were performed using nonparametric statistical tests. Results: Three hundred fifty-seven adolescents (36.1% boys and 63.9% girls) undergoing orthodontic treatment participated in the study. The prevalence of condition-specific impacts related to wearing orthodontic appliances was 22.7%. Among adolescents with impacts related to wearing orthodontic appliances, 35.8% reported impacts of severe or very severe intensity and 90.1% reported impacts on only one daily performance, commonly eating or speaking. The prevalence, but not the intensity or the extent, of condition-specific impacts differed by type of orthodontic appliance (P ϭ .001). Conclusions: One in four Brazilian adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment reported side effects, specific impacts on daily living, related to wearing orthodontic appliances. Such impacts were higher among adolescents wearing fixed rather than removable or a combination of fixed and removable orthodontic appliances. This information could help to inform patients about the frequency and intensity of sociodental impacts during the course of their treatment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts on Daily Performances Related to Wearing Orthodontic Appliances

Bernabé

Sheiham

Oliveira

2008

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pain has been reported to affect between 70% and 95% of children undergoing treatment and its intensity and duration varies from patient to patient, typically beginning 2 to 3 hours after appliance fitting 2,3,4,5,6 and lasting for up to 7 days, with a maximum intensity at 2 days 7,8,9 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative assessment of chewing gum and ibuprofen in the management of orthodontic pain with fixed appliances: A pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial

Ireland

Ellis²,

Jordan

et al. 2016

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This cover sheet may not be removed from the document.Please scroll down to view the document. Methods: Patients about to undergo orthodontic treatment using upper and lower fixed appliances were recruited into this 2-arm parallel design RCT in 9 trial sites in the South West of England. They were randomly allocated to one of two groups, namely the experimental chewing gum group or control ibuprofen group. Eligibility criteria included patients undergoing upper and lower fixed appliance therapy, aged 11-17 years, who were able to use ibuprofen and chewing gum. The primary outcome measure was pain experienced using a mean of three recordings on a scale of 0-10. Secondary outcome measures were pain experienced in the subsequent three days, again after the first archwire change, the use of ibuprofen and appliance breakages. Pain scores were recorded using a questionnaire and posted to a collection centre by the patient. Randomisation was by means of a central telephone service and comprised computer-generated pseudo-random numbers used to generate a sequential allocation list, with permuted blocks of variable size (two and four) and stratified by centre. Neither clinicians nor the patients were blinded to the intervention. Patients in the control group were only permitted to use ibuprofen whilst patients in the experimental group were allowed to use ibuprofen only if they didn't get sufficient analgesia from using chewing gum.Data were analysed using the principle of Intention to Treat with multilevel modelling to reflect the structured nature of the data (scores within patient within site).Results: 1000 patients were recruited and randomised in a ratio of 1:1 to either the chewing gum or ibuprofen (control) groups. The male to female ratio was similar in both groups 3 (chewing gum 35.6%: 64.4%, ibuprofen 38.4%: 61.6%). The pain questionnaire response rates were good at approximately 84% and 83% following appliance placement (chewing gum group 419: ibuprofen group 407) and 70% and 71% following the first archwire change (chewing gum group 343: ibuprofen group 341). The primary outcome was similar for the two groups: mean pain 4.31 in the experimental (chewing gum) group and 4.17 in the control (ibuprofen) group, difference 0.14 (95% confidence interval -0.13 to 0.41). There was a suggestion that the relative pain scores for the two groups changed over time, with the chewing gum group experiencing slightly more pain on the day of bond-up and less on the subsequent three days; however, the differences were not of clinical importance. There were no significant differences for the period following archwire change. The reported use of ibuprofen was less in the chewing gum group than in the control ibuprofen group:following appliance placement the mean number of occasions ibuprofen was used was 2.1 in the chewing gum group and 3.0 in the ibuprofen group (adjusted difference -0.96 (95%CI -0.75 to -1.17, p<0.001)); following archwire change the analogous figures were 0.8 and 1.5 occasions (difference -0.65 (-0.44 to -0.86,...

show abstract

“…The majority of patients (95%) reported pain 24 hours following the insertion of a fixed orthodontic appliance. 3,6,7 Adults reported higher degree of pain than children. 3 Compared to the pain associated with dental extraction, the pain following placement of an archwire was reported to be more intense and of longer duration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pain experience during initial alignment with three types of nickel-titanium archwires: A prospective clinical trial

Abdelrahman

Al-Nimri

Maaitah

2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To clinically evaluate the pain intensity during the week following initial placement of three different orthodontic aligning archwires. Materials and Methods: A consecutive sample of 75 patients requiring upper and lower fixed orthodontic appliances were alternately allocated into three different archwires (0.014-inch superelastic NiTi, 0.014-inch thermoelastic NiTi or 0.014-inch conventional NiTi). Assessments of pain/discomfort were made on a daily basis over the first 7-day period after bonding by means of visual analog scale and consumption of analgesics. The maximum pain score was recorded. The possible associations between age, gender, degree of crowding, and teeth irregularity and the pain intensity were also examined. Demographic and clinical differences between the three groups were compared with chi-square test or analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. Results: No statistically significant differences were found in the pain intensity when the three aligning NiTi archwires were compared (P 5 .63). No significant differences in pain perception were found in terms of gender, age, lower arch crowding, and incisor irregularity. The intake of analgesics was the least in the superelastic NiTi group. Conclusions: The three forms of NiTi wires were similar in terms of pain intensity during the initial aligning stage of orthodontic fixed appliance therapy. Gender, age, and the degree of crowding have no effect on the perceived discomfort experienced by patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment. (Angle Orthod. 2015;85:1021-1026

show abstract

Traumatic ulcers and pain during orthodontic treatment

Cited by 109 publications

References 11 publications

Impacts on Daily Performances Related to Wearing Orthodontic Appliances

Impacts on Daily Performances Related to Wearing Orthodontic Appliances

Comparative assessment of chewing gum and ibuprofen in the management of orthodontic pain with fixed appliances: A pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial

Pain experience during initial alignment with three types of nickel-titanium archwires: A prospective clinical trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About