Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40851707›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Assessing the Efficacy of Various Pain Management Methods in Orthodontic Debonding: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Shaik Farhatulla, Inuganti Ranganayakulu, Anisha Valli Anumallasetty, Neelapala Rohini, Nachu Manojna, Rsvm Raghu Ram

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Shaik FarhatullaOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, GSL Dental College and Hospital, Rajahmundry, IND.
Inuganti RanganayakuluOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, GSL Dental College and Hospital, Rajahmundry, IND.
Anisha Valli AnumallasettyOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, GSL Dental College and Hospital, Rajahmundry, IND.
Neelapala RohiniOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, GSL Dental College and Hospital, Rajahmundry, IND.
Nachu ManojnaOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, GSL Dental College and Hospital, Rajahmundry, IND.
Rsvm Raghu RamOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, GSL Dental College and Hospital, Rajahmundry, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOrthodontic treatment improves smiles and confidence, but pain during procedures often leads to high dropout rates, making effective pain management essential. Debonding, which marks the completion of treatment, can be particularly painful. Although advanced pain relief methods such as analgesics, local anesthesia, ultrasound techniques, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and nitrous oxide sedation are available, they are often costly, time-consuming, and may affect patient compliance. In contrast, simple and cost-effective techniques like finger pressure, elastomeric wafers, stress relief, and vibration anesthesia offer practical alternatives to reduce pain and enhance patient satisfaction. However, there is limited literature comparing the effectiveness of these methods.

objectivesTo evaluate the pain experienced during orthodontic debonding using finger pressure, elastomeric wafers, stress relief, and vibration anesthesia, and to assess the effectiveness of these pain control methods with respect to age and gender variations. METHODOLOGY: The descriptive cross-sectional study adhered to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines, involving 140 (61 males and 79 females) orthodontic patients aged 18-30 years, who had undergone fixed orthodontic treatment with 0.022" x 0.028" slot McLaughlin, Bennett, and Trevisi (MBT) prescription metal brackets were randomly divided into four groups. A single debonding plier is used, employing elastomeric wafer, finger pressure, stress relief, and vibration anesthesia methods. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores were recorded after debonding. Statistical data was analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20 (Released 2012; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States).

resultsUpper jaw pain scores differed significantly among groups, favouring the elastomeric wafer group (p<0.001) with a low score. Vibration anesthesia group resulted in higher mean pain scores, particularly in the upper regions (p<0.001). In the lower jaw, the elastomeric wafer group had lower mean pain scores, with no significant difference from finger pressure group (p=0.514). Overall, the elastomeric wafer group demonstrated significantly lower mean pain scores, with no gender-based differences observed.

conclusionsElastomeric wafer and finger pressure methods were effective in orthodontic pain management during debonding, along with a stress relief method to a certain level. Vibration anesthesia method is comparatively less effective for pain reliving method while debonding, particularly in anterior regions. The study found no gender differences in the pain scores across all groups.

Indexed as

debondingelastomeric waferfinger pressurestress reliefvibration anaesthesiavisual analog scale

Identifiers

PMID40851707
PMCPMC12368472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.