File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: A comparison of pain experienced by patients treated with labial and lingual orthodontic appliances

TitleA comparison of pain experienced by patients treated with labial and lingual orthodontic appliances
Authors
Issue Date2008
PublisherRoyal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.racds.org
Citation
Annals Of The Royal Australasian College Of Dental Surgeons, 2008, v. 19, p. 176-178 How to Cite?
AbstractThere has been a paradigm shift within orthodontics in the use of lingual fixed appliances compared with the use of labial fixed appliances on the basis of perceived benefits and acceptance by patients. A matched case-control prospective longitudinal study of adult patients treated in the Orthodontic Department, Prince Philip Dental Hospital, Hong Kong. Group A consisted of 30 patients treated with lingual orthodontic appliances. Group B consisted of 30 patients treated with labial orthodontic appliances. Data were collected at five different time points using questionnaire: pre-treatment; one week after the placement of the fixed appliance, and then at 1-month, 3-months, and 6-months thereafter. The questionnaire consisted of 15 items, in which 11 items were rated on a visual analogue scale. Patients' experience of pain decreased over the study period (p < 0.001); Those treated with lingual appliances reported significantly greater pain experience than those treated with labial appliances with respect to tongue pain (p < 0.001). However, those treated with labial appliances reported experiencing significantly more lip pain (p < 0.01), cheek pain (p < 0.001), and gum pain (p < 0.05). Patients treated with lingual appliances reported experiencing pain earlier on than those treated with labial appliances (p < 0.05). Both groups reported the pain level to be the same throughout the day (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in reported disturbance of sleep or analgesic consumption between the two groups (p > 0.05). Patients treated with both labial and lingual orthodontic appliances experienced pain during treatment, but this decreased over the treatment period. Patients treated with lingual appliances experienced more tongue pain whereas those treated with labial appliances experienced more lip, cheek and gum pain. Patients treated with lingual appliance reported experiencing pain earlier on than those treated with labial appliances.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154713
ISSN
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.101

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWu, AKen_US
dc.contributor.authorMcgrath, CPen_US
dc.contributor.authorWong, RWen_US
dc.contributor.authorRabie, ABen_US
dc.contributor.authorWiechmann, Den_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-08T08:27:03Z-
dc.date.available2012-08-08T08:27:03Z-
dc.date.issued2008en_US
dc.identifier.citationAnnals Of The Royal Australasian College Of Dental Surgeons, 2008, v. 19, p. 176-178en_US
dc.identifier.issn0158-1570en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154713-
dc.description.abstractThere has been a paradigm shift within orthodontics in the use of lingual fixed appliances compared with the use of labial fixed appliances on the basis of perceived benefits and acceptance by patients. A matched case-control prospective longitudinal study of adult patients treated in the Orthodontic Department, Prince Philip Dental Hospital, Hong Kong. Group A consisted of 30 patients treated with lingual orthodontic appliances. Group B consisted of 30 patients treated with labial orthodontic appliances. Data were collected at five different time points using questionnaire: pre-treatment; one week after the placement of the fixed appliance, and then at 1-month, 3-months, and 6-months thereafter. The questionnaire consisted of 15 items, in which 11 items were rated on a visual analogue scale. Patients' experience of pain decreased over the study period (p < 0.001); Those treated with lingual appliances reported significantly greater pain experience than those treated with labial appliances with respect to tongue pain (p < 0.001). However, those treated with labial appliances reported experiencing significantly more lip pain (p < 0.01), cheek pain (p < 0.001), and gum pain (p < 0.05). Patients treated with lingual appliances reported experiencing pain earlier on than those treated with labial appliances (p < 0.05). Both groups reported the pain level to be the same throughout the day (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in reported disturbance of sleep or analgesic consumption between the two groups (p > 0.05). Patients treated with both labial and lingual orthodontic appliances experienced pain during treatment, but this decreased over the treatment period. Patients treated with lingual appliances experienced more tongue pain whereas those treated with labial appliances experienced more lip, cheek and gum pain. Patients treated with lingual appliance reported experiencing pain earlier on than those treated with labial appliances.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherRoyal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.racds.orgen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAnnals of the Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeonsen_US
dc.subject.meshAdulten_US
dc.subject.meshAnalysis Of Varianceen_US
dc.subject.meshChi-Square Distributionen_US
dc.subject.meshFacial Pain - Etiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshOrthodontic Appliance Designen_US
dc.subject.meshOrthodontic Appliances - Adverse Effectsen_US
dc.subject.meshPain Measurementen_US
dc.subject.meshProspective Studiesen_US
dc.subject.meshQuestionnairesen_US
dc.titleA comparison of pain experienced by patients treated with labial and lingual orthodontic appliancesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailMcGrath, CP:mcgrathc@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.emailRabie, AB:rabie@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityMcGrath, CP=rp00037en_US
dc.identifier.authorityRabie, AB=rp00029en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.pmid22073476-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84859391016en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros153926-
dc.identifier.volume19en_US
dc.identifier.spage176en_US
dc.identifier.epage178en_US
dc.publisher.placeAustraliaen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWu, AK=48661608900en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridMcGrath, CP=7102335507en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWong, RW=36642905800en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridRabie, AB=7007172734en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWiechmann, D=7004476038en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats