Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35449781›Full record

ArticleJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2022

Orthodontic pain control following arch wire placement; a comparison between pre-emptive tenoxicam and chewing gum: a randomized clinical trial.

Lakshman Chowdary Basam, Gowri Sankar Singaraju, Sobitha Obili, Thejasree Keerthipati, Ram Chowdary Basam, Mandava Prasad

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lakshman Chowdary BasamDepartment of Orthodontics, Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences, Takkellapadu, Guntur, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8772-9341
Gowri Sankar SingarajuDepartment of Orthodontics, Narayana Dental College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7666-7392
Sobitha ObiliDepartment of Orthodontics, Narayana Dental College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0376-9395
Thejasree KeerthipatiDepartment of Orthodontics, Narayana Dental College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2629-242X
Ram Chowdary BasamDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences, Takkellapadu, Guntur, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1368-8425
Mandava PrasadDepartment of Orthodontics, Narayana Dental College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3024-544X
Narayana Dental College and Hospital · INKamineni Institute of Dental Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Chewing GumOrthodontic TreatmentPain ControlTenoxicam

Identifiers

PMID35449781
PMCPMC8995674
OpenAlexW4224315902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.