Feedback

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

Ireland, A.J, Ellis, P, Jordan, A, Bradley, R, Ewings, P, Atack, N.E, Griffiths, H, House, K, Moore, M, Deacon, S, Wenger, N, Worth, V, Scaysbrook, E and Sandy, J.R (2016) 'Comparative assessment of chewing gum and ibuprofen in the management of orthodontic pain with fixed appliances: a pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial.' American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 150 (2). pp. 220-227. ISSN 0889-5406

[img]
Preview
Text
7576.pdf - Accepted Version
CC BY-NC.ND 4.0.

Download (682kB) | Preview

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The aim of this randomized trial was to investigate the effect of the use of a sugar-free chewing gum vs ibuprofen on reported pain in orthodontic patients. METHODS This was a 2-arm parallel design randomized controlled trial in 9 sites in the southwest of England. Patients about to undergo orthodontic treatment with maxillary and mandibular fixed appliances were recruited and randomly allocated to an experimental chewing gum group or a control ibuprofen group. Eligibility criteria included patients undergoing fixed maxillary and mandibular appliance therapy, aged 11 to 17 years, and able to use ibuprofen and chewing gum. The primary outcome measure was pain experienced after appliance placement using a mean of 3 recordings on a scale of 0 to 10. Secondary outcome measures were pain experienced in the subsequent 3 days, pain after the first archwire change, ibuprofen use, and appliance breakages. Pain scores were recorded with a questionnaire and posted to a collection center by each patient. Randomization was by means of a central telephone service and comprised computer-generated random numbers used to generate a sequential allocation list, with permuted blocks of variable size (2 and 4) and stratified by center. Neither the clinicians nor the patients were blinded to the intervention. Patients in the control group were permitted to use ibuprofen only, and patients in the experimental group were allowed to use ibuprofen if they did not get sufficient analgesia from the chewing gum. Data were analyzed using the principle of intention to treat with multilevel modeling to reflect the structured nature of the data (scores within patient within site). RESULTS One thousand patients were recruited and randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to the chewing gum and ibuprofen (control) groups. The male-to-female ratios were similar in the groups. The pain questionnaire response rates were good at approximately 84% and 83% after appliance placement (chewing gum group, 419; ibuprofen group, 407) and 70% and 71% after the first archwire change (chewing gum group, 343; ibuprofen group, 341). The primary outcomes were similar for the 2 groups: mean pain scores, 4.31 in the chewing gum group and 4.17 in the ibuprofen group; difference, 0.14 (95% CI, −0.13 to 0.41). There was a suggestion that the relative pain scores for the 2 groups changed over time, with the chewing gum group experiencing slightly more pain on the day of bond-up and less on the subsequent 3 days; however, the differences had no clinical importance. There were no significant differences for the period after archwire change. The reported use of ibuprofen was less in the chewing gum group than in the ibuprofen group; after appliance placement, the mean numbers of occasions that ibuprofen was used were 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]); after archwire change, the figures were 0.8 and 1.5 occasions (difference, −0.65 [−0.44 to −0.86; P <0.001]). After appliance placement and the first archwire change, there was no clinically or statistically significant difference in appliance breakages between the chewing gum and ibuprofen groups after either bond-up (7% and 8.8%, respectively) or the first archwire change (4.2% and 5.5%, respectively). No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS The use of a sugar-free chewing gum may reduce the level of ibuprofen usage but has no clinically or statistically significant effect on bond failures. REGISTRATION International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (79884739) and National Institute of Health Research (6631) portfolios. FUNDING This research was supported by an award by the British Orthodontic Society Foundation.

Item Type: Article
Keywords: dental pain, orthodontic pain
Subjects: R Medicine > RJ Pediatrics
R Medicine > RK Dentistry
Divisions: College of Liberal Arts
Date Deposited: 06 Apr 2016 15:06
Last Modified: 29 Jul 2017 01:40
References: 1. Ertan Erdinç AM, Dinçer B Perception of pain during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:79-85 2. Oliver RG, Knapman YM. Attitudes to orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod 1985;12:179-188 3. Kvam E, Gjerdert NR, Bondevik O. Traumatic ulcers and pain during orthodontic treatment. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1987;15:104-107 4. Lew K KK. Attitudes and perceptions of adults towards orthodontic treatment in an Asian community. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 1993;21:31-35 5. Scheuer PA, Firestone AR, Burgin WB. Perception of pain as a result of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Eur J Orthod 1996; 18:349-357 6. Firestone AR, Scheurer PA, Burgin WB. Patients’ anticipation of pain and pain-related side effects and their perception of pain as a result of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:387-396 7. Ngan P, Kess B, Wilson S. Perception of discomfort by patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:47-53 8. Ngan P, Wilson S, Shanfeld J, Amini H. The effect of ibuprofen on the level of discomfort in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:88-95 9. Campos MJ, Fraga MR, Raposo NR, Ferreira AP, Vitral RW. Assessment of pain experience in adults and children after bracket bonding and initial archwire insertion. Dental Press J Orthod. 2013;18:32-37 10. Sinclair P, Cannito M, Goates L, Solomos L, Alexander C Patient responses to lingual appliances. J Clin Orthod 1986;20:396-404 11. Scheurer PR, Firestone AR, Bűrgin WB Perception of pain as a result of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Eur J Orthod 1996;18:349-357 12. Patel V. Non-completion of orthodontic treatment: B J Orthod. 1989;19:47-54 13. Krishnan V. Orthodontic pain: from causes to management — a review. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:170–179 14. Suzuki R, Rygh LJ, Dickenson AH. Bad news from the brain: descending 5-HT pathways that control spinal pain processing. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2004;25:613-617 15. McAlinden RL, Ellis PE, Sandy JR. Report of an adverse incident in a randomised clinical trial. J Orthod. 2005;32:203-205 16. Matusiak R Harley KE Paracetamol overdose in a teenager following placement of a fixed appliance. Dent Update. 2009;36:33-35 17. Vane JR. Inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis as a mechanism of action for aspirin-like drugs. Nat New Biol. 1971;231:232-235 18. Benson PE., Razi RM., Al-Bloushi R J. The effect of chewing gum on the impact, pain and breakages associated with fixed orthodontic appliances: a randomized clinical trial. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2012;15:178–187 19. Bradley RL, Ellis PE, Thomas P, Bellis H, Ireland AJ, Sandy JR. A randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of ibuprofen and paracetamol in the control of orthodontic pain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132:511-517 20. Peacock J, Peacock P. Oxford Handbook of Medical Statistics. Oxford University Press 2011 21. Farzanegan F, Zebarjadb S M, Alizadeh S, Ahrari F. Pain reduction after initial archwire placement in orthodontic patients: A randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:169-173
URI: http://researchspace.bathspa.ac.uk/id/eprint/7576
Request a change to this item or report an issue Request a change to this item or report an issue
Update item (repository staff only) Update item (repository staff only)