Trial reportDental press journal of orthodontics2021
Auriculotherapy used to manage orthodontic pain: a randomized controlled pilot study.
Trial report in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of auriculotherapy on labor pain severity and labor duration: a clinical trial.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025Trial
- Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSeveral methods are commonly used to decrease orthodontic pain, but versatile tools and standardized protocols are still lacking.
objectiveIn response to the need for alternatives to conventional analgesic methods, this study evaluates the analgesic effects of auriculotherapy (AT) during the first three months of fixed orthodontic treatment.
methodsA sample of 36 subjects was selected, with patients randomly allocated into two homogeneous groups, Study Group (SG) and Control Group (CG), depending on the application/non-application of AT. Patients rated their pain scores monthly from 0 to 10, on visual analogue scales (VAS) at the time of bonding (T0) and again at two appliance adjustments (T1 and T2). At each of these treatment phases, VAS was applied in six different time moments (TM): immediately before, immediately after, after 4 hours, after 8 hours, after 24 hours, and after 72h hours. Descriptive statistical analysis, a Student's t-test, and a Chi-square test were applied to the collected data (statistical significance for p< 0.05).
resultsSG patients reported lower pain levels than CG patients, both at T0, T1 and T2. Moreover, average pain intensity values were lower in the SG for all TM analyzed, with the t-test significant (p< 0.05) for most TMs.
conclusionAT was effective in the pain treatment of patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. Further studies are needed with a sham control group to confirm the validity of these results.
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.