RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
Background: The purpose of this randomized trial is to compare the efficacy of weekly once regime of neutral sodium fluoride (NaF) oral rinse with that of acidulated phosphate (APF) formulated daily mouth rinse in the reduction of white spot lesions (WSLs) associated with fixed orthodontic appliance treatment. Methods: The participants (n = 90) of this single-center, two-arm parallel study without a control group were randomly assigned with 1 : 1 distribution to each of the two groups after the bonding of brackets. Group A/test group 1 (n = 45) was given weekly rinse of neutral sodium fluoride (Colgate® PreviDent® Dental Rinse-0.2% NaF), and for group B/test group 2 (n = 45), an APF formulated daily oral rinse (Colgate® Ortho Defense@ PhosFlur® Rinse-0.044% w/v of NaF) was given for six months. The outcome was assessed by the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) index for scoring the demineralization, and for scoring gingivitis, Loe and Silness gingival index (GI) was utilized. Four different time points "T0"immediately before bonding procedures, "T1" after 4weeks, "T2" after 12 weeks, and "T3" after 24 weeks were taken to assess the ICDAS and GI scores. Results: The mean ICDAS scores for group A (NaF) were 0.025, 0.051, 0.093, and 0.113 and for group B (APF) were 0.014, 0.022, 0.038, and 0.015 at different points of time. The GI scores for group A were 0.008, 0.22, 0.33, and 0.38 and for group B were 0.003, 0.136, 0.181, and 0.097 at different time points. There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) for both groups in terms of reducing WSL and GI. Conclusion: APF formulated daily oral rinse-0.044% w/v of NaF-is more effective than the weekly once regimen of 0.2% NaF oral rinse to prevent white spot lesions.
