↓ Skip to main content

Non-pharmacological interventions for alleviating pain during orthodontic treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
36 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
223 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Non-pharmacological interventions for alleviating pain during orthodontic treatment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010263.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Padhraig S Fleming, Hardus Strydom, Christos Katsaros, LCI MacDonald, Michele Curatolo, Piotr Fudalej, Nikolaos Pandis

Abstract

Pain is prevalent during orthodontics, particularly during the early stages of treatment. To ensure patient comfort and compliance during treatment, the prevention or management of pain is of major importance. While pharmacological means are the first line of treatment for alleviation of orthodontic pain, a range of non-pharmacological approaches have been proposed recently as viable alternatives. To assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions to alleviate pain associated with orthodontic treatment. Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 6 October 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 6 October 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 6 October 2016) and EThOS (to 6 October 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a non-pharmacological orthodontic pain intervention to a placebo, no intervention or another non-pharmacological pain intervention were eligible for inclusion. We included any type of orthodontic treatment but excluded trials involving the use of pre-emptive analgesia or pain relief following orthognathic (jaw) surgery or dental extractions in combination with orthodontic treatment. We excluded split-mouth trials (in which each participant receives two or more treatments, each to a separate section of the mouth) and cross-over trials. At least two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used the random-effects model and expressed results as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We investigated heterogeneity with reference to both clinical and methodological factors. We included 14 RCTs that randomised 931 participants. Interventions assessed included: low-level laser therapy (LLLT) (4 studies); vibratory devices (5 studies); chewing adjuncts (3 studies); brain wave music or cognitive behavioural therapy (1 study) and post-treatment communication in the form of a text message (1 study). Twelve studies involved self-report assessment of pain on a continuous scale and two studies used questionnaires to assess the nature, intensity and location of pain.We combined data from two studies involving 118 participants, which provided low-quality evidence that LLLT reduced pain at 24 hours by 20.27 mm (95% CI -24.50 to -16.04, P < 0.001; I² = 0%). LLLT also appeared to reduce pain at six hours, three days and seven days.Results for the other comparisons assessed are inconclusive as the quality of the evidence was very low. Vibratory devices were assessed in five studies (272 participants), four of which were at high risk of bias and one unclear. Chewing adjuncts (chewing gum or a bite wafer) were evaluated in three studies (181 participants); two studies were at high risk of bias and one was unclear. Brain wave music and cognitive behavioural therapy were evaluated in one trial (36 participants) assessed at unclear risk of bias. Post-treatment text messaging (39 participants) was evaluated in one study assessed at high risk of bias.Adverse effects were not measured in any of the studies. Overall, the results are inconclusive. Although available evidence suggests laser irradiation may help reduce pain during orthodontic treatment in the short term, this evidence is of low quality and therefore we cannot rely on the findings. Evidence for other non-pharmacological interventions is either very low quality or entirely lacking. Further prospective research is required to address the lack of reliable evidence concerning the effectiveness of a range of non-pharmacological interventions to manage orthodontic pain. Future studies should use prolonged follow-up and should measure costs and possible harms.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 222 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Researcher 21 9%
Student > Postgraduate 20 9%
Other 41 18%
Unknown 46 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 12%
Psychology 15 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 19 9%
Unknown 54 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2020.
All research outputs
#485,334
of 14,569,806 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,362
of 11,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,119
of 376,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#33
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,569,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 376,960 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.