Comparison of signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders and parafunctions in children with and without cardiovascular diseases.

AIM: This study aimed to examine and compare the signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and oral parafunctions in pediatric patients with and without cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). STUDY DESIGN: A total of 295 children with CVD (the CVDG group) admitted to the Cardiology Department and another set of 295 children without CVD (the CG group) were included in this study. All children were 6-18 years old. This study was conducted in 2 stages, comprising a questionnaire (symptoms/parafunctional habits) and a temporomandibular joint examination (signs) based on the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD). The data obtained were evaluated statistically. RESULTS: The two groups showed no significant difference in the prevalence of TMD symptoms/signs or parafunctional habits (p > 0.05). Although the anamnestic symptoms related to pain were lower in the CVDG group, the clinical examination results were similar in terms of pain findings between the two groups. Both anamnestic and clinical findings showed higher "joint noise" and "deviation" in the CVDG group (p < 0.05). With regard to parafunctional habits, "fingernail biting" and "bruxism", were higher in the CVDG group than in the CG group. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of TMDs and oral parafunctions did not vary between children with and without CVD. However, a significant relationship was observed between the symptoms/signs of TMDs, parafunctional habits and the presence of CVD in children.

Temporomandibular disorders and oral parafunction in children living with their parents and children living in institutional protective care: a comparative study.

AIM: This study aimed: (i) to identify and compare the prevalence of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and oral parafunctions among children living in child-protection institutions (CLCPI) with children living with their parents (CLWP); (ii) to determine whether or not there is an association between oral parafunctions and TMDs; and (iii) to examine the possible impact of stress on TMDs. STUDY DESIGN: The study was conducted on a total of 385 children who were divided into two groups: the CLCPI group (n = 184); and the CLWP group (control, n = 201). All children 8-18 years of age and living in protective-care facilities in Kocaeli, Turkey, were included in this study in the CLCPI group. The CLWP control group comprised children of the same age as those in the CLCPI group, but those in the CLWP group were living with their families and were randomly selected from one primary school, one elementary school and one high school in Kocaeli, Turkey. Each child in the study completed a questionnaire and underwent a clinical examination. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of TMDs and oral parafunctions were higher in the CLCPI group than in the CLWP group (P < 0.05). The vast majority of participants reported at least one parafunction (CLCPI, n = 97.3%; CLWP, n = 93%). Problems related to family or friends were higher in the CLCPI group, whereas problems related to school lessons were higher in the CLWP group (P < 0.05). In both groups, positive associations were found between signs and symptoms of TMDs, oral parafunctions and stressful life events. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of signs and symptoms of TMDs and oral parafunctions differed significantly between CLCPI and CLWP groups, with children of the CLCPI group found to be significantly more prone to TMDs and oral parafunctions than children of the CLWP group.

Efficacy of Low-Level Laser Therapy in the Management of Postoperative Pain in Children After Primary Teeth Extraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on postoperative pain in children undergoing primary molar extraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, controlled-crossover, double-blind clinical trial was conducted with 37 children requiring bilateral extraction of primary molars. In one tooth (LLLT group), a GaAlAs diode laser (wavelength, 810 nm; continuous mode, output power 0.3 W; 180 sec, 4 J/cm(2)) was applied intraorally 1 cm from the target tissue immediately following extraction. In the contralateral tooth (control group), the hand piece was applied, but without laser activation. Children and parents rated postoperative pain on the first three evenings following extraction using, respectively, the Wong-Baker FACES(®) Pain Rating Scale (PRS) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Parents also reported if their children received analgesics. Data were analyzed using χ(2) and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Mean VAS scores were higher for the control group than for the LLLT group on the first and second evenings, and PRS scores were higher for the control group than for the laser group on the first evening, but the differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). More analgesics were given to children in the control group on the first evening; however, both groups received equal amounts on the next two evenings (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, LLLT application following primary molar extraction was not found to affect postoperative pain in children.

Evaluation of the injection pain with the use of DentalVibe injection system during supraperiosteal anaesthesia in children: a randomised clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the use of a traditional syringe (TS) and the DentalVibe (DV) Injection Comfort System on the pain of needle insertion and injection of supraperiosteal (SP) anaesthesia into the mandibles and maxillas of children aged 6-12 years. METHODS: The study was a randomised, controlled, crossover clinical trial, comprising 60 children requiring an operative procedure with SP anaesthesia on both their mandibular and maxillary molars, bilaterally. One of the molars was treated with a TS, and the contralateral tooth was treated with the DV for both arches. On each visit, subjective and objective pain was evaluated using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale and the Face, Leg, Activity, Cry, Consolability Scale. Patients were asked which technique they preferred. The data were analysed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Spearman's correlation test, and Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were noted between TS and DV for pain during injection and needle insertion for supraperiosteal anaesthesia in either the maxillary and mandibular operative procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Children experienced similar pain during SP anaesthesia administered with a TS and the DV, regardless of gender and jaw differences. DV was less preferred over the traditional procedure in children.