Dataset Information

Pain and discomfort perception during miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction: secondary data analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare the perception of pain and discomfort of patients and guardians during treatment between miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction (MAMP) therapy using Hybrid (HH) and Conventional Hyrax (CH) expanders.

Materials and methods

Group HH was composed of 18 subjects (8 female, 10 male; initial age: 10.80 years) with Class III malocclusion treated with a hybrid expander in the maxilla and two miniscrews in the anterior region of the mandible. Class III elastics were used from maxillary first molar to mandibular miniscrews. Group CH was composed of 14 subjects (6 female, 8 male; initial age: 11.44 years) treated with a similar protocol except for conventional Hyrax expander. Pain and discomfort of patients and guardians were assessed using a visual analog scale immediately after placement (T1), after 24 hours (T2), and 1 month after appliance installation (T3). Mean differences (MD) were obtained. Intergroup and intragroup timepoint comparisons were performed using independent t-tests, analysis of variance for repeated measures and Friedman test (P < 5%).

Results

Both groups demonstrated similar levels of pain and discomfort with a significant decrease after 1 month of appliance placement (MD: 4.21; P = .608). Compared to patient perceptions, guardians reported a higher level of pain and discomfort at all timepoints (MD, T1: 13.91, P < .001; T2: 23.15, P < .001; T3: 9.35, P = .008).

Conclusions

MAMP therapy with HH and CH produced similar levels of pain and discomfort after appliance installation until 1 month after treatment. Pain and discomfort may not influence the choice between HH and CH expanders.

SUBMITTER: Miranda F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10117207 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pain and discomfort perception during miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction: secondary data analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

Miranda Felicia F Parra Lucas Duarte LD Bastos José Carlos da Cunha JCDC Santos Alexandre Magno Dos AMD Silva Ivan de Souza IS Quevedo Beatriz B Aliaga-Del Castillo Aron A Garib Daniela D

The Angle orthodontist 20230501 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the perception of pain and discomfort of patients and guardians during treatment between miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction (MAMP) therapy using Hybrid (HH) and Conventional Hyrax (CH) expanders.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Group HH was composed of 18 subjects (8 female, 10 male; initial age: 10.80 years) with Class III malocclusion treated with a hybrid expander in the maxilla and two miniscrews in the anterior region of the mandible. Class III elastics were ...[more]

PMID: 36795039

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction Direct, rigid indirect, and nonrigid indirect absolute anchorages using temporary anchorage devices (TADs, mini-implants/miniscrews) can provide promising opportunities for challenging, yet common, orthodontic tooth movements such as molar protraction. Rigid rectangular wire and ligature wire are the most common methods of attaching a tooth to a miniscrew in indirect anchorages. We aimed to provide a comparison of the rigidity of the connecting wire in terms of stress on the miniscrew, the anchorage loss, and the risk of root resorption using finite element analysis (FEA). Methods The maxillary right second molar was protracted into the proximal space at a 150 g load (1) using direct absolute anchorage with a tapered miniscrew implanted between the premolar roots and using indirect absolute anchorage with the second premolar reinforced by the miniscrew through (2) a rigid stainless steel (SS) wire or (3) a nonrigid SS ligature wire (4) at different elastic moduli. Stresses and displacements of 4 models' elements were measured. The risk of external root resorption was evaluated. Results Connecting the tooth to the miniscrew using rigid full-size wire (model 2) compared to ligature (model 3) can give better control of the anchorage (using the ligature wire, the anchorage loss is 1.5 times larger than the rectangular wire) and may reduce the risk of root resorption of the anchorage unit. However, the risk of miniscrew failure increases with a rigid connection, although it is still lower than with direct anchorage. The miniscrew stress when using a ligature is approximately 30% of the rigid model using the rectangular wire. The miniscrew stress using the rectangular wire is approximately 82.4% of the miniscrew stress in the direct model. Parametric analysis shows that the higher the elastic modulus of the miniscrew-tooth connecting wire in the indirect anchorage, the less the anchorage loss/palatal rotation of the premolars/and the risk of root resorption of the anchorage teeth and instead the stress on the miniscrew increases. Conclusions Direct anchorage (followed by rigid indirect anchorage but not nonrigid) might be recommended when the premolars should not be moved or premolar root resorption is a concern. Miniscrew loosening risk might be the highest in direct anchorage and lowest in nonrigid indirect anchorage (which might be recommended for poor bone densities).

Project description:BackgroundQuad Helix (QH) is the appliance most preferred by orthodontists to correct unilateral posterior crossbite in the early mixed dentition while other orthodontists suggest rapid maxillary expansion (RME) on deciduous teeth in these patients.ObjectivesTo evaluate and compare perceived pain intensity, discomfort, functional jaw impairment, and analgesic consumption during the first week of treatment with either RME or QH appliances.Trial designTwo-arm parallel group, two-centre, randomized controlled trial.Material and methodsSeventy-two patients, mean age 9.5 (SD ±0.8) years, with unilateral posterior crossbite requiring maxillary expansion were randomly allocated to either the RME (22 boys, 14 girls) or QH (22 boys, 14 girls) group. Validated questionnaires were used to assess pain intensity, discomfort, jaw function impairment, and analgesic consumption, on the first, fourth, and seventh days after appliance insertion and activation.BlindingDue to clinical limitations, only the outcome assessors were blinded to the groups to which the patients were allocated.ResultsSeventy patients completed the questionnaires. Pain from the tongue and chafe from the appliance were significantly higher in the QH group on the first day of treatment (P = 0.003 and P = 0.000, respectively). On the fourth day, the chafe from the appliance was still significantly higher in the QH group (P = 0.007). Speech was affected in both groups on day 1; this impairment continued and was significantly higher in the RME group days 4 and 7. No significant difference in analgesic consumption was found between the groups at any time. The analgesic consumption was highest at day 1 of treatment.HarmsNo harm was observed in any patient.LimitationsDouble blinding was not possible due to the clinical limitations.ConclusionDuring the initial 4 days of treatment, pain from the tongue and chafe from the appliance caused the most reported inconvenience in the patients in the QH group. A majority of reported visual analogue scale values were in the lower mid-range, suggesting low to moderate pain and discomfort in both groups.Clinical trial registrationNCT04458506.

Project description:BackgroundMaxillary protraction with or without expansion is a widely known orthopedic treatment modality in growing skeletal Class III patients. However, limited data are available regarding the outcomes of long-term changes in the maxilla. Aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of the long-term maxillary anteroposterior changes following a facemask therapy with or without rapid maxillary expansion in growing skeletal Class III patients.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using the databases of PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, published up to Sep. 2020, with maxillary protraction and/or expansion as keywords were included in this meta-analysis. Risk of bias within and across studies were assessed using the Cochrane tools (RoB2.0 and ROBINS-I) and GRADE approach. Overall and subgroup comparisons with the random-effect model were performed in this meta-analysis. Meta-regression models were designed to determine potential heterogeneity.ResultsThere was a statistically significant increase (Mean difference, 2.29°; 95% confidence interval, 1.86-2.73; and p < 0.001 after facemask (FM) protraction. Mean difference, 1.73°; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-2.11; and p < 0.001 after rapid maxillary expansion(RME) and facemask protraction) in the Sella-Nasion-A point (SNA) angle in the treatment groups as compared with the control groups, when measured during the less than 3-year follow-up period. However, no statistically significant changes (Mean difference, 0.28°; 95% confidence interval, -0.57-1.13; and p = 0.52 after facemask protraction. Mean difference, 0.34°; 95% confidence interval, -0.64-1.33; and p = 0.50 after rapid maxillary expansion and facemask protraction) were observed in the SNA angle in the groups, when measured after 3 years of follow-up. Meta-regression analysis also showed that with increased follow-up duration, the effectiveness of maxillary protraction decreased.ConclusionThis meta-analysis revealed that maxillary protraction therapy could be effective for a short-term in correcting maxillary hypoplasia and the treatment result was not affected by mean age and sex. However, with increased follow-up duration, the sagittal maxillary changes gradually decreased. Limitations on this review were only the SNA angle was used and clinical heterogeneity was not discussed. The quality of evidence was moderate. Further long-term observational studies are necessary for a comprehensive evaluation of the effects on maxillary skeletal changes.

Dataset Information

Pain and discomfort perception during miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction: secondary data analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Pain and discomfort perception during miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction: secondary data analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets