Chewing gum for pain control following orthodontic separator placement

Azeem, Muhammad; Khan, Dalia Iftikhar; Jamal, Furqan; Ali, Saqib; Fatima, Mehrin; Hayat, Muhammad Burhan; Shakoor, Muhammad Usman

doi:10.1016/j.ejwf.2018.07.002

Cited by 7 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings of this study showed that all the dental specialists preferred narrow buccal corridors over wider buccal corridors. This is in agreement with the findings of past studies where evaluators preferred narrow buccal [18] corridors over wider buccal corridors, but in contrast with the findings of studies by Roden et al, where evaluators preferred narrow buccal [25] corridors over wider buccal corridors . Limitations of this study were small sample size in the form of small number of specialists in each of the three groups (10 specialist each group), rating on female images only, and lack of standardization of images for evaluating other factors related to smile attractiveness.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Various authors have also used t h i s s c a l e f o r t h e r a t i n g o f s m i l e [17] attractiveness . This scale was used in the present study because it is simple and quick [18][19] with reproducible results . Gender is not important in rating of buccal corridor width preferences or smile Group-I = CDS, Group -II= Prosthodontists, Group-III= Orthodontists Multiple comparisons is seen using post-hoc Tuckey's test (p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the present study, only photographs of female model were included, the primary reason for including single gender was inconsistency in the results for using both male and female population photographs. Moreover, previous studies reported inconclusive findings in terms of documenting differences for the values of attractiveness using single variable as it was [17][18] driven by other variables too . In the present study, visual analogue scale was used to rate the attractiveness of smile.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Differences Among the Perceptions of Orthodontists, Prosthodontists and Conservative Dentistry Specialists Regarding Buccal Corridor Widths

Azeem

Raza

Mahmood

et al. 2021

JUMDC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: To find out the optimal ranges of smile attractiveness on basis of different amounts of buccal corridor widths, as judged by Pakistani orthodontists, prosthodontists and conservative dentistry specialists (CDS). METHODOLOGY: Present cross-sectional study was conducted from June 2016 to June 2017. The anterior smiling image of a female model was edited to be converted to 10 images displaying different amounts of buccal corridor width. After informed consent from the subject, different buccal corridors widths images were created at following widths: 0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, 10%, 12%, 14%, 16%, and 18%. This was followed by measurement of smile attractiveness of these 10 images on a visual analogue scale by 30 evaluators in three groups. Group 1 consisted of 10 CDS, group 2 consisted of 10 prosthodontists and group 3 consisted of 10 orthodontists. The data was collected and scores of smile attractiveness were presented in form of mean and standard deviation for each group. The differences in the three groups regarding perception of smile attractiveness were found out using ANOVA test and Turkey’s post-hoc test was used for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: For group 1, the highest scoring was obtained by image showing 10% buccal corridor width. In group 2, the highest score was by image showing 14% buccal corridor width, whereas in group 3, the highest scoring was showing 12% buccal corridor width. The differences found were statistically insignificant. CONCLUSION: Dental specialty does not affect perception of smile attractiveness. Buccal corridor width greater than 14% should be avoided.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differences Among the Perceptions of Orthodontists, Prosthodontists and Conservative Dentistry Specialists Regarding Buccal Corridor Widths

Azeem

Raza

Mahmood

et al. 2021

JUMDC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Owing to these limitations, non-analgesic pain control methods have been approved [ 10 ]. Few studies have reported the efficacy of chewing gum for orthodontic pain control [ 23 24 25 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthodontic pain control following arch wire placement; a comparison between pre-emptive tenoxicam and chewing gum: a randomized clinical trial

Singaraju

Mandava

2022

J Dent Anesth Pain Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background 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 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 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 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.

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, the evidence regarding the impact of NSAIDs on the rate of OTM remains inconclusive, mainly due to the lack of clinical studies. Moreover, ibuprofen can also result in systemic side effects, such as gastrointestinal discomfort, thrombocytopenia, allergic reactions, increased blood pressure and many other adverse reactions (Al Shayea, 2020; Azeem et al, 2018; Bagnoli et al, 2013; Farzanegan et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sugar-free chewing gum versus conventional analgesic drugs for pain relief with fixed orthodontic appliances. A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the effect of chewing sugar-free gum towards alleviating self-reported orthodontic treatment (OT) pain compared with conventional analgesic drugs (CADs). Search sources: An unrestricted search of indexed databases and manual searching was performed up to September 2021. Data selection: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the impact of chewing gum and CADs on relieving self-reported orthodontic pain were included. Data extraction: Data screening, extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment were performed by two authors. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. The quality of available evidence was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results: Nine RCTs were included. Eight RCTs used the Visual Analogue Scale for self-reported pain assessment, while one RCT used the Numeric Rating Scale. Five RCTs had a high RoB and four RCTs had a moderate RoB. Power analysis for sample size estimation was performed in six RCTs. Separate meta-analyses were performed by pooling quantitative data from five RCTs that compared self-reported orthodontic pain between chewing gum and ibuprofen groups for the following timepoints: baseline; immediately; 2 hours; 6 hours; bedtime; 24 hours; 2 days; 3 days; 5 days; and 7 days after the placement of orthodontic appliances. None of the timepoints individually indicated a difference in self-reported pain scores between chewing sugar-free gum and ibuprofen groups. The overall level of evidence was very low. Conclusion: Chewing sugar-free gum is a potentially useful alternative to CADs towards pain alleviation during fixed OT.

show abstract

Chewing gum for pain control following orthodontic separator placement

Cited by 7 publications

References 25 publications

Differences Among the Perceptions of Orthodontists, Prosthodontists and Conservative Dentistry Specialists Regarding Buccal Corridor Widths

Differences Among the Perceptions of Orthodontists, Prosthodontists and Conservative Dentistry Specialists Regarding Buccal Corridor Widths

Orthodontic pain control following arch wire placement; a comparison between pre-emptive tenoxicam and chewing gum: a randomized clinical trial

Sugar-free chewing gum versus conventional analgesic drugs for pain relief with fixed orthodontic appliances. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About