Trial reportDental press journal of orthodontics2019
Separation and pain perception of Elastomeric, Kesling and Kansal separators.
Trial report in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analgesic Efficacy of Bromelain and Bromelain Plus Turmeric for Pain Control After Orthodontic Separator Placement: A Triple-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Trial
- Separation effect, pain perception during functional activity and gingival inflammation of elastomeric and Kansal separators-a split mouth study.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Trial
- Procedural Pain, Hall Technique Crowns and Separators: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Pilot Feasibility Study.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVarious types of separators have been advocated, but the ideal separator should produce optimum separation with minimal pain and discomfort.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the amount of separation achieved by three different types of separators (Elastomeric, Kesling and Kansal), and to assess the associated pain and discomfort.
methodsA random single-blind split-mouth study was conducted on 108 patients seeking fixed orthodontic treatment, in which two different separators were used on each side in both the arches for a single patient. After five days, the amount of separation was measured with a feeler gauge. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scoring was performed by the patient on each day, to evaluate pain perception. Discomfort was evaluated by questionnaire filled by the patient at the time of separator removal.
resultsThe greatest amount of separation was seen with the elastomeric separators, while the smallest separation was seen with Kansal separators. VAS scoring showed maximum pain at day 1 with all the three separator types. Highest pain was perceived in the Elastomeric separators group, followed by Kesling and Kansal separators, respectively. Statistically significant difference was found in VAS score of Elastomeric separators, when compared to both Kesling and Kansal, on day 1 and 2 (p= 0.001). Analysis of the questionnaires revealed that a greater number of patients experienced discomfort with elastomeric separators placement (69.4%), which was statistically significant (p< 0.01) when compared to the other two types of separators. Answers to the other questions were comparable, except for the need for medications, which was reportedly highest with elastomeric separators.
conclusionKesling separators produce adequate separation with minimal discomfort and pain, compared to Elastomeric and Kansal separators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.