Assessment of Patient-Centered Outcomes When Treating Maxillary Constriction Using a Slow Removable Versus a Rapid Fixed Expansion Appliance in the Adolescence Period: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Self Cite

The pain and discomfort associated with orthodontic treatment are considered undesirable complications which may negatively affect the patient's cooperation and reduce the efficiency of orthodontic treatment. This trial aimed to assess patient-centered outcomes in the treatment of class I malocclusion with severe crowding using self-ligating brackets (SLBs) with or without an acceleration procedure (piezocision) compared to the traditional brackets (TBs) in a three-arm trial. Materials and MethodsSixty-six patients (51 females, 15 males; mean age ± SD: 20.08 ± 2.61 years) attending the Department of Orthodontics, the University of Damascus, Damascus (Syria) from April 2019 to October 2020 participated in this study. The patients were randomly allocated to three groups: the TBs s group (n = 22; mean age ± SD: 18.72 ± 2.42), the SLBs group (n = 22; mean age ± SD: 20.48 ± 2.84), and the SLBs with the piezocision group (SLBs+P; n = 22; mean age ± SD: 19.17 ± 2.59). Patient-centered outcomes were assessed using two standardized questionnaires depending on visual analog scales (VAS) for the majority of the questions and a binary scale (Yes/No) for the last two questions in the second questionnaire. The levels of pain, discomfort, swelling, difficulties with mastication, swallowing, and jaw movement restriction were measured at five assessment times: one day (T1), 3 days (T2), 7 days (T3), 14 days (T4), and 28 days (T5) after the beginning of treatment. The satisfaction levels, acceptance to undergo the applied treatment again, and willingness to advise a friend to receive similar treatment were measured at the last assessment time (T5). One-way ANOVA test or its alternative nonparametric test (i.e., Kruskal-Wallis test) was utilized to compare the three groups. ResultsThere were statistically significant differences between the three groups regarding pain, discomfort, swelling, difficulties with mastication, problems with swallowing, and jaw movement restriction during the first three assessment times only (T1, T2, and T3; P < 0.001). The differences were mainly between the SLBs+P group and the other two groups, where the mean values were greater in the SLBs+P group. Otherwise, there were no significant statistical differences between the SLBs and the TBs groups. Concerning patients' satisfaction with the provided treatment, a statistically significant difference between the three groups was detected after 28 days (T5; P < 0.001). The SLBs+P group showed the lowest mean values, whereas there were no significant differences between the two other groups. ConclusionThe levels of pain and discomfort, swelling, difficulties in mastication and swallowing, and restriction of jaw movement were greater in SLBs with the piezocision group compared to the sole use of SLBs or TBs in the first week only. The patients showed a high level of satisfaction with the applied therapeutic procedures, which means that SLBs alone or in combination with piezocision can be an accepted treatment modality by patients in the acceleration of orthod...

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Patient-Centered Outcomes Associated With the Acceleration of Upper Incisor Decrowding Using Self-Ligating Brackets With or Without Piezocision in Comparison With Traditional Brackets: A Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial

Al-Ibrahim

Hajeer

Burhan

et al. 2022

Self Cite

“…The current study seems to be the first randomized clinical trial to investigate the levels of pain, discomfort, and functional impairments associated with the conventional method of PICs traction compared to the accelerated traction method using the minimally invasive corticotomy-assisted technique. The VAS scale was used in this study because it has many proven advantages, as it is a practical, simple, and effective method for evaluating these variables [ 14 , 27 ]. In addition, it can also estimate changes in sensation intensity over time [ 14 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The VAS scale was used in this study because it has many proven advantages, as it is a practical, simple, and effective method for evaluating these variables [ 14 , 27 ]. In addition, it can also estimate changes in sensation intensity over time [ 14 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the medical literature, several studies evaluated patients' perceptions of pain, discomfort, acceptance, and health-related quality of life associated with different types of orthodontic treatment interventions, such as functional treatments of skeletal class II and III cases [12,13], rapid and slow maxillary expansion [14], lingual orthodontics [15,16], and clear aligners [17]. However, very few studies have been conducted to determine the postoperative complications associated with the treatment of impacted maxillary canines [18][19][20][21][22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of Patient-Centered Outcomes When Treating Palatally Impacted Canines Using Conventional Versus Accelerated Minimally Invasive Corticotomy-Assisted Orthodontic Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Mousa¹,

Hajeer²,

Burhan³

et al. 2022

Objective This study aimed to investigate whether there were any differences in pain levels, discomfort, and functional impairments when treating palatally impacted canines (PICs) using the conventional treatment method compared to the accelerated minimally invasive corticotomy-assisted method. Materials and methods Fifty-two patients (11 males and 41 females) with unilateral PICs were included. The patients were randomly assigned to the conventional traction group (26 patients, mean age of 20.37 ± 2.15 years) or the minimally-invasive corticotomy-assisted group (26 patients, mean age of 20.18 ± 2.18 years). The levels of pain, discomfort, and functional difficulties were assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) after 24 hours (T1), four days (T2), seven days (T3), 14 days (T4), and 28 days (T5) following the surgical exposure procedure. Results There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups for any patient-centered outcome at all assessment times (P>0.01). The levels of pain and discomfort were slightly greater in the conventional group than in the corticotomy-assisted group on the first day after surgical exposure, with no significant difference between the two groups (mean pain: 4.11, P=0.481; mean discomfort: 9.00, P=0.223). Pain and discomfort required seven days to reach low levels and four weeks to reach the lowest levels in both study groups. The levels of swelling, mastication difficulties, swallowing difficulties, limitation in jaw movements and speech changes were mild to moderate on the first postoperative day and the recovery time was four days postoperatively for swallowing difficulties and speech changes. In comparison, the recovery time was seven days for the other three outcomes in both study groups. Conclusions After one day of the surgical intervention, either by conventional or corticotomy-assisted methods, the patients reported mild to moderate pain, discomfort, and functional impairments. These disabilities gradually reached low levels during the first and second weeks to reach their lowest levels four weeks postoperatively in both study groups. The similarity between the conventional and the acceleration methods in pain levels and other oral disabilities may make corticotomy-assisted treatment a comfortable and effective method when treating adult patients with PICs. In addition, patient satisfaction with the corticotomy-assisted procedure was high.

“…Several factors affect the quality of life during orthodontic treatment, such as pain, difficulty eating, change of speech, and diet changes [ 5 ]. Recently, several published papers have focused on the assessment of patient-oriented outcome measures following different treatment modalities, such as removable appliances in interceptive orthodontics [ 6 ], bone-anchored intermaxillary traction [ 7 ], functional appliances [ 8 ], rapid and slow maxillary expansion appliances [ 9 ], the accelerated fixed orthodontic treatments [ 10 , 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) in Patients Undergoing Lingual Versus Labial Fixed Orthodontic Appliances: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Kara-Boulad¹,

Burhan²,

Hajeer³

et al. 2022

Self Cite

Background Wearing fixed orthodontic appliances may negatively impact oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) during treatment. This study aimed to compare the OHRQoL of patients treated with labial or lingual appliances. Methodology A total of 38 patients (23 females, 15 males; mean age: 21.3 years) with class I malocclusion and moderate crowding in the upper and lower dental arches were included. These patients were planned to be treated on a non-extraction basis and were randomly divided into the following two groups: the lingual appliance (LA) group and the buccal appliance (BA) group. The Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire was used to measure the OHRQoL at the following six assessment times: before treatment (T0), one week after treatment (T1), one month after treatment (T2), three months after treatment (T3), six months after treatment (T4), and at the end of the active treatment (T5). Results In total, 19 patients in each group were included in the final analysis with no dropouts. In both groups, the overall OHIP-14 scores increased and peaked on the first week following appliance placement and then significantly decreased over time. The LA group had significantly greater overall OHIP‑14 scores than the labial group at T1 (p < 0.001) and T2 (p = 0.004) only. Conclusions The OHRQoL improved in both lingual and labial groups after treatment. Moreover, it was better in the labial group compared to the lingual group during the first month of treatment. In both groups, the greatest deterioration in OHRQoL occurred in the first week and gradually decreased over time.