Premium
Evaluation of pain intensity in patients treated with aligners and conventional fixed appliances: Randomized clinical trial
Author(s) -
Casteluci Cleomária Evelyn Vieira Freire,
Oltramari Paula Vanessa Pedron,
Conti Paulo César Rodrigues,
Bonjardim Leonardo Rigoldi,
AlmeidaPedrin Renata Rodrigues,
Fernandes Thaís Maria Freire,
Almeida Marcio Rodrigues,
Castro Ferreira Conti Ana Cláudia
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
orthodontics and craniofacial research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.664
H-Index - 55
eISSN - 1601-6343
pISSN - 1601-6335
DOI - 10.1111/ocr.12431
Subject(s) - hypervigilance , randomized controlled trial , medicine , visual analogue scale , confidence interval , statistical significance , intensity (physics) , physical therapy , anxiety , sample size determination , mann–whitney u test , clinical trial , surgery , psychiatry , statistics , physics , mathematics , quantum mechanics
Objective This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the pain intensity in patients treated with orthodontic aligners and conventional fixed appliances. Setting and sample population This study was a randomized clinical trial. The sample comprised 39 patients randomly allocated into 2 groups: OA (orthodontic aligners, n = 20) and FA (Fixed Appliance, n = 19). Material and methods The pain intensity was measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS) in the following periods: T0 (baseline), T1 (seven days after appliance placement) and seven days after each return on the first (T2), third (T3) and sixth (T4) months. The following variables were also investigated in the baseline: conditioned pain modulation, anxiety levels, hypervigilance and catastrophizing. The VAS measurements between groups were compared by the Mann‐Whitney test. Comparisons between periods within each group were performed by the Friedman test. Data regarding catastrophizing and hypervigilance were compared by the t test. All tests were applied at a significance level of 5%, with 95% confidence interval. Results Both groups presented similar levels of anxiety, hypervigilance, catastrophizing and conditioned pain modulation. Both groups did not differ concerning the pain intensity in all periods. The intragroup evaluation revealed statistical differences between days in the FA group at all moments evaluated, for the OA group, similar findings between days were found for the T1 evaluation; however, at the 6‐month period (T4), the pain levels varied over these days without statistical difference. Higher levels of pain were observed in the first seven days after appliance placement. Conclusion The pain intensity, usually mild, was not influenced by the appliance design, although different patterns of reported pain seem to occur between groups.