Treatment of pain after initial archwire placement: a noninferiority randomized clinical trial comparing over-the-counter analgesics and bite-wafer use.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is a major concern of patients before orthodontic treatment. Currently, the most frequently recommended treatments for pain after archwire placement or appliance adjustment are over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics. Although the overuse of OTC medications and their potential side effects are concerns, particularly for children, no study to date has investigated a nonpharmacologic option for pain management as an alternative for these analgesics. METHODS: A parallel 2-group stratified block randomized clinical trial was designed to assess the pain response of adolescents during the first week after initial archwire placement. The subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 pain management groups: bite wafer (BW) or OTC analgesics. Pain levels were reported on a numerical rating scale. The intensity and unpleasantness of the pain were also assessed. Data were collected at 8 times over a 7-day period. A general linear mixed model with heterogeneous compound symmetry covariance matrix was fitted separately for each outcome. Estimates from the mixed model were used to test a noninferiority hypothesis that the BW group, on average, was not inferior with respect to pain management to the OTC group. RESULTS: The patterns of pain level, intensity, and unpleasantness over time were similar for the 2 groups (P >0.33). Pain management for the BW group as indicated by pain level, intensity, and unpleasantness was not inferior to that of the OTC group (P >0.39). CONCLUSIONS: In adolescents, the BW is a nonpharmacologic option for pain management after orthodontic procedures that is at least as effective as OTC analgesics.

A costs analysis of dental treatment for ectodermal dysplasia.

OVERVIEW: Dental treatment modalities for ectodermal dysplasia (ED) vary markedly depending on the clinical manifestations, but to date there have been no studies exploring the potential economic impact of ED. On the basis of anecdotal and clinical reports, the authors postulate that costs of dental treatment for this condition can have a substantial financial impact on patients and their families. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the authors' pilot study was to develop an economic model for various treatment modalities for ED with severe hypodontia. METHODS: The authors first used a comprehensive review of the literature and expert consensus to establish a treatment modalities model for ED. Next, they completed chart reviews to validate the model with sample treatment and costs information. Using these data, they then constructed a model of treatment options and associated costs. RESULTS: The sample included 24 patients with ED who had severe hypodontia. Forty-two percent were female; patients' ages ranged from 4 years, 11 months to 31 years, 1 month. Forty-two percent had dental insurance coverage, while more than one-half paid for services out of pocket. An estimated 84 percent had undergone prosthodontic treatment, 37 percent orthodontic treatment and 19 percent implant surgery. Depending on the age of the patient and types of dental treatment, there was a broad variation in costs. This ranged from $2,038 to $3,298 for those who had received prosthodontic treatment only; it ranged from $12,632 to $41,146 for those who had received a combination of prosthodontic, orthodontic and implant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Dental treatment for ED had a marked financial impact on patients and their families and varied depending on the type and duration of treatment.