Orthodontic pain control following arch wire placement; a comparison between pre-emptive tenoxicam and chewing gum: a randomized clinical trial.
Chewing Gum
Orthodontic Treatment
Pain Control
Tenoxicam
Journal
Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine
ISSN: 2383-9309
Titre abrégé: J Dent Anesth Pain Med
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101690691
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
26
12
2021
revised:
08
03
2022
accepted:
10
03
2022
entrez:
22
4
2022
pubmed:
23
4
2022
medline:
23
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Pain during fixed orthodontic treatment can have a detrimental effect on patient treatment compliance. To overcome this, there is a definite need to establish the best pain-relieving methods suitable for orthodontic patients in terms of efficacy and use. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of chewing gum and pre-emptive tenoxicam on pain after initial archwire placement and to evaluate the pain perceptions of orthodontic patients in the two groups while performing various functions at specific time intervals. Forty-two patients were selected and randomly divided into two groups: group A (chewing gum) and group B (pre-emptive tenoxicam). Pain perception was documented by patients immediately; at 4 h; at bedtime on the day of archwire placement; the next morning; at 24 h; and at bedtime on the 2nd, 3rd, and 7th day after the initial archwire placement. Pain scores were noted during fitting of the posterior teeth, biting, and chewing using a visual analog scale. The data obtained were subjected to statistical analysis. Group A showed a significant increase in pain until the next morning while fitting the posterior teeth, biting, and chewing [36.2, 52.0, 33.4, respectively]], followed by a gradual decrease by the 7th day. Group B showed a significant increase in pain at bedtime on biting, with a peak value of 47.5. Pain on chewing, fitting posterior teeth, peaked the morning of the next day (100.0, 45.0). The Freidman test showed a statistically significant difference with a p-value of < 0.01. Higher pain scores were observed while chewing and biting compared with that while fitting the posterior teeth in both groups. The overall comparison of pain control between the two groups was not statistically significant [P > 0.05] between the two groups. Chewing gum was not inferior to pre-emptive tenoxicam. Thus, chewing gum is a non-pharmacological alternative to analgesics for orthodontic pain control that eliminates the chance of adverse reactions and can be used in the absence of adult observation.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Pain during fixed orthodontic treatment can have a detrimental effect on patient treatment compliance. To overcome this, there is a definite need to establish the best pain-relieving methods suitable for orthodontic patients in terms of efficacy and use. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of chewing gum and pre-emptive tenoxicam on pain after initial archwire placement and to evaluate the pain perceptions of orthodontic patients in the two groups while performing various functions at specific time intervals.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Forty-two patients were selected and randomly divided into two groups: group A (chewing gum) and group B (pre-emptive tenoxicam). Pain perception was documented by patients immediately; at 4 h; at bedtime on the day of archwire placement; the next morning; at 24 h; and at bedtime on the 2nd, 3rd, and 7th day after the initial archwire placement. Pain scores were noted during fitting of the posterior teeth, biting, and chewing using a visual analog scale. The data obtained were subjected to statistical analysis.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Group A showed a significant increase in pain until the next morning while fitting the posterior teeth, biting, and chewing [36.2, 52.0, 33.4, respectively]], followed by a gradual decrease by the 7th day. Group B showed a significant increase in pain at bedtime on biting, with a peak value of 47.5. Pain on chewing, fitting posterior teeth, peaked the morning of the next day (100.0, 45.0). The Freidman test showed a statistically significant difference with a p-value of < 0.01. Higher pain scores were observed while chewing and biting compared with that while fitting the posterior teeth in both groups. The overall comparison of pain control between the two groups was not statistically significant [P > 0.05] between the two groups.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Chewing gum was not inferior to pre-emptive tenoxicam. Thus, chewing gum is a non-pharmacological alternative to analgesics for orthodontic pain control that eliminates the chance of adverse reactions and can be used in the absence of adult observation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35449781
doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2022.22.2.107
pmc: PMC8995674
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
107-116Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
DECLARATION OF INTEREST: There are no conflicts of interest.
Références
Angle Orthod. 2005 Sep;75(5):791-6
pubmed: 16279825
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Nov;136(5):662-7
pubmed: 19892282
Eur J Orthod. 2007 Apr;29(2):170-9
pubmed: 17488999
Quintessence Int. 2015 Jul-Aug;46(7):603-9
pubmed: 25918756
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2020 Apr 1;21(4):416-420
pubmed: 32584279
J Clin Orthod. 1984 Aug;18(8):572-5
pubmed: 6595271
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995 Dec;108(6):614-22
pubmed: 7503039
J Orthod. 2005 Sep;32(3):203-5
pubmed: 16170062
J Clin Orthod. 1994 May;28(5):291-2
pubmed: 8613507
Eur J Orthod. 2019 Sep 21;41(5):478-485
pubmed: 30590573
Angle Orthod. 2005 Mar;75(2):214-9
pubmed: 15825785
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2009 Feb;12(1):14-9
pubmed: 19154270
Eur J Orthod. 2004 Feb;26(1):79-85
pubmed: 14994886
Korean J Orthod. 2021 Sep 25;51(5):346-354
pubmed: 34556589
Eur J Orthod. 1996 Aug;18(4):349-57
pubmed: 8921656
Prog Orthod. 2015;16:34
pubmed: 26467790
Eur J Orthod. 1999 Aug;21(4):387-96
pubmed: 10502901
BMC Oral Health. 2020 Sep 18;20(1):259
pubmed: 32948150
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Aug;150(2):220-7
pubmed: 27476354
Int J Ayurveda Res. 2010 Jan;1(1):55-7
pubmed: 20532100
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Mar;129(3):402-6
pubmed: 16527637
J Clin Orthod. 1992 May;26(5):311-3
pubmed: 1430181
Anesth Pain Control Dent. 1992 Fall;1(4):229-33
pubmed: 1298491
Anesth Analg. 1993 Aug;77(2):362-79
pubmed: 8346839
Angle Orthod. 2016 Mar;86(2):193-8
pubmed: 26132512
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 23;12:CD010263
pubmed: 28009052
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1986 Aug;90(2):132-8
pubmed: 3488674
J Orthod. 2013 Dec;40(4):276-85
pubmed: 24297959
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2012 Aug;15(3):178-87
pubmed: 22812440
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000 Dec;118(6):629-35
pubmed: 11113797
J Dent Res. 2008 May;87(5):414-34
pubmed: 18434571
Prostaglandins. 1978 Jul;16(1):31-7
pubmed: 360300
J Clin Orthod. 2003 Apr;37(4):205-8; quiz 203-4
pubmed: 12747073
Pain. 1977 Aug;3(4):307-338
pubmed: 198724
Dent Clin North Am. 1988 Jul;32(3):411-35
pubmed: 2900159
Am J Med. 1996 Jul 31;101(1A):25S-32S
pubmed: 8764757
Prog Orthod. 2013 May 17;14:6
pubmed: 24325834