Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online:176
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 35  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 52-56

The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy on controlling pain and discomfort during separator placement before fixation of orthodontic appliances


1 Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Karary University, Omdurman, Sudan
2 Institute of Laser, Sudan University of Science and Technology, Khartoum, Sudan

Date of Submission09-Sep-2020
Date of Decision15-Feb-2021
Date of Acceptance05-Mar-2021
Date of Web Publication27-Apr-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Elhadi Mohieldin Awooda
Institute of Laser, Sudan University of Science and Technology, Khartoum
Sudan
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijpn.ijpn_128_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Background: Pain and discomfort are the most common sequel of orthodontic treatment both before and after separator placement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on pain and discomfort control during separator placement before orthodontic fixed appliance placement. Materials and Methods: A single-blind, split-mouth clinical trial with a sample size of six patients (12 half mouths as cases where three positions on the buccal side of each tooth lased by the power of 1 Watt diode laser before orthodontic separator placement, while the other 12 teeth acted as control where separators were placed without laser application. Assessment of pain and discomfort was done by visual analog scale. The results of pain intensity and discomfort between the study group (EG) and the control group (CG) were compared by t-test and ANOVA, and the level of significance was set at a level at P ≤ 0.05. Results: The majority of the laser group experienced pain during chewing (85.70%) and most of them change their food habits (66.70%). In most of the lased cases (70%), pain intensity increased after 72 h, while among the control cases; it increased after 24 h (83.40%). There was a statistically significant difference in pain degree among the laser group at different time intervals (P = 0.05), while on the control group, statistically significant difference was found at baseline immediately after placement of orthodontic separator (P = 0.05). The majority of the patients' followed the instructions and did not take any medication to decrease pain intensity (66.70%). Conclusion: LLLT was effective in decreasing pain and discomfort during elastic separator placement for orthodontic patients with fixed appliances.

Keywords: Diode laser, low power laser, orthodontic treatment, pain intensity


How to cite this article:
Muctar SA, Marouf AA, Awooda EM. The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy on controlling pain and discomfort during separator placement before fixation of orthodontic appliances. Indian J Pain 2021;35:52-6

How to cite this URL:
Muctar SA, Marouf AA, Awooda EM. The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy on controlling pain and discomfort during separator placement before fixation of orthodontic appliances. Indian J Pain [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Jun 15];35:52-6. Available from: https://www.indianjpain.org/text.asp?2021/35/1/52/314687


  Introduction Top

The International Association for the Study of Pain defined pain as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage.”[1] it is a subjective experience, which cannot be easily measured.[2] The placement of separators is a common procedure used in orthodontics to fit and cement molar bands for palatal expanders, headgears, or full-fixed appliances. Pain is a burdensome side effect accompanying orthodontic treatment due to force application for tooth movement. Clinical observation indicates that these sensations usually appear a few hours after force application,[3] or during the 1st day or first couple of days of treatment, and that pain intensity falls to normal levels after 7 days.[4] Ngan et al. demonstrated that the placement of separators significantly increased the amount of pain experienced both 4 and 24 h after placement. After 7 days, the pain had returned to a nonsignificant level.[5]

Pain reduction without analgesic drugs is necessary for orthodontic treatment.[5],[6],[7] Pain reduces patient acceptance and compliance and might even prompt discontinuation of treatment. To find alternatives to pain relief by drugs, investigators have looked at low-level laser therapy (LLLT).[8],[9],[10] LLLT is well established clinically in dentistry because of its anti-inflammatory and regenerative effects and its conditioning effect on tooth enamel.[11],[12] The mechanisms underlying pain relief by LLLT are still poorly understood. Some authors attribute the analgesia to the anti-inflammatory and neuronal effects of LLLT,[13] including stimulation of nerve cell and lymphocyte respiration, stabilization of membrane potentials, and the release of neurotransmitters in the inflammatory tissue.[14],[15],[16] In addition, elongation of substance P and CGRP-rich neuritis was found to be reduced in vitro.[17] In previous studies, the pain was reduced by LLLT both after separation and placement of arch wires for orthodontic treatments, but no significant differences were found.[9],[10]

Despite its substantial clinical value, orthodontic pain is broadly neglected and underestimated.[18],[19],[20],[21],[22] LLLT has been suggested as a new analgesic treatment free of the adverse effects of analgesic medications. The available studies are quite controversial, so this study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of LLLT in controlling pain and discomfort during separator placement before orthodontic treatment.


  Materials and Methods Top

This study was a single-blind, split-mouth clinical trial. Patients of both sexes, aged between 16 and 20 years, were selected from the orthodontic clinic (Military dental hospital, Omdurman, and Khartoum dental teaching hospital). The patients were selected according to the following inclusion criteria: healthy molar, presence of proximal contacts around the maxillary first permanent molars on both sides, absence of periodontal disease, and absence of periapical pathology. Excluded were Patients with any systemic debilitating diseases (e.g., malignant neoplasias, metabolic diseases, chronic pain, neurological/psychiatric disorders, or use of medications (antibiotics, corticosteroids, bisphosphonates, analgesics, anti inflammatory agents, or contraceptives) taken up to one month before the selection).

The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Sudan University of Sciences and Technology. Participation was voluntary after explaining the purpose of the study and those who accepted to participate signed informed written consent.

Oral examination for the participants to check indexes of visible plaque, bleeding on probing, periodontal probing depth, and clinical attachment loss was done. The absence of periapical pathology was verified by periapical radiographs from the initial records. For each participant, the oral cavity was divided into four quadrants with respect to the right and left first molars in each quadrant in order to eliminate intersubject variability. One quadrant was designated as the laser group and the other, as the control group. For blinding and to eliminate confounding factors; a real laser beam was subjected to the laser quadrant, while the control quadrant was placebo lased by the pointer light emitted from the laser device to eliminate any psychological confounding factors. Each participant had four separators placed mesially and distally to either the right or left maxillary or mandibular first molars. Participants in both groups were requested to rate their pain intensity and discomfort by using the visual analog scale (VAS).[23]

Diode laser 808 nm (Elexxion pico, Germany); laser irradiation was performed in continuous mode of 400 MW output power, with a single spot application in the immediate region corresponding to the buccal surfaces of the tooth at three points. One point was aimed at the interdental papilla from the mesial direction; one point was aimed at the distal and another near the apex of the root.

For the control sites, the laser unit was switched off; however, the sound signal was maintained in order to be aware of the application time, thereby maintaining the blinding of the participants. The laser was applied to each group for the same amount of time (30 s per point), corresponding to a total of 90 s per tooth.

Patients were instructed to quantify the discomfort or pain by means of a VAS, noting the intensity on a scale of 0 to 10 according to the participant's self-perception. This evaluation was performed after separator placement at the following times: before laser application T0, after 5 min (T1), 24 h (T2), and 72 h (T3). All statistical procedures performed using the SPSS version 23.0 Statistical Software Program (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, USA). A comparison of the pain intensity between different time intervals was done using a one-way ANOVA test. A comparison between the pain intensity between the laser group and the control group was done by an independent sample t-test. The level of significance was set at a P ≤ 0.05.


  Results Top

The results of the study showed both of the laser and the nonlaser control sites experienced pain during chewing (85.70%) [Figure 1]. The pain intensity increased after 24 h at control sites while most of the cases their pain intensity increased after 72 h [Figure 2]. The majority of the participants did not take any medication to decrease the intensity of the pain [Figure 3]. While more than half of the participants changed their food habits (66.70%) during the 1st-week duration after placement of fixed orthodontic appliances [Figure 4].

Figure 1: The highest level of pain participants experience during chewing for both; treated by laser side and control side without laser treatment

Click here to view
Figure 2: Comparison of pain intensity between the sides treated by laser after separator placement and control sides without laser according to the time duration

Click here to view
Figure 3: Medications used to treat pain and discomfort after placement of orthodontic appliances

Click here to view
Figure 4: Participants changing their food habit after placement of fixed orthodontic appliance for both case side treated by laser and control side without laser treatment

Click here to view

The statistically significant difference was present between the pain intensity at different time intervals for the laser group P = 0.05 [Table 1], while there was a statistically significant difference of the pain intensity for the laser and control groups at baseline, P = 0.05 [Table 2].

Table 1: Intragroup comparison between pain degrees according to Visual Analog Scale at different time intervals for both (laser group) and control (nonlaser group)

Click here to view
Table 2: Intergroup comparison between pain intensity after placement of fixed orthodontic appliances for Cases group (treated by laser) and control group (without laser treatment)

Click here to view

  Discussion Top

Blinding in clinical trial studies is appropriate to prevent confounding's caused by the patient's subjectivity (uncontrolled bias). The split-mouth design used in this study is appropriate to eliminate subjectivity toward pain sensation. It can achieve meaningful results with a relatively smaller sample size, and the effects of intersubject variation can be minimized when the individual is self-matched or self-controlled.[24],[25]

The VAS is a subjective method of measuring pain and has been used extensively in many clinical studies as it is described as an easy and reliable way to demonstrate small variations in pain intensity.[4],[5],[26] The validity of the VAS was previously utilized to record pain intensity induced by orthodontic separators or arch wire insertion in adolescent samples.[27],[28] The pain VAS is self-completed by the respondent. It is an old technique as the respondent is asked to place a line perpendicular to the VAS line at the point that represents their pain intensity.[29] The standard scale followed is the Numeric Rating Scale, as it is best reflecting the pain intensity, and when compared to VAS, it can be administered verbally (therefore also by telephone) or graphically for self-completion.[30]

Pain and discomfort are the most common sequel of orthodontic treatment both after separation and placement of arch wires and one of its most significant problems.[18],[19],[31] About 90% of orthodontic patients find that orthodontic treatment is painful.[20],[32] Therefore, it is a critical restriction to orthodontic treatment and a common cause of treatment discontinuation.[18],[20],[21],[33] Our results agree with the finding of others, [34,35] as they concluded that chewing was the most painful experience related to orthodontic separators placement. Due to unbearable pain sensations, the majority of our participants changed their eating habits. This is in agreement with Scheurer et al., who reported that the influence of fixed orthodontic appliances on eating/chewing was significantly higher than the influence on daily life.[36]

The majority of the patients treated by LLLT before separator placement stated that their pain intensity increases after 72 h, while in the majority of the control cases, their pain intensity increases after 24 h. This finding is similar to others, [26, 28, 37, 38] as their results concluded that the most severe pain is within the 1st day of separators placement, but disagreed with others studies; [35,39] in which their result revealed that experiencing the peak of separator pain on day two or day three.

The reason behind the increases of the orthodontic pain after 24–48 h may be due to the hyperalgesia of the periodontal ligament because, after separator placement, the nerve fibers of the periodontal ligaments are more sensitive to noxious stimuli such as prostaglandins, histamines, and substance P released from the inflammatory process of moving teeth.[12],[40] These inflammatory mediators reach their highest concentration during this 24–48 h, which explains the peak pain response seen during this time period. Our results show that majority of the patients' compliance with the instructions given by their orthodontists to avoid over counter pain killers and not take any medication to decrease the pain intensity. This may be explained due to their voluntary participation and hopefulness of eradicating pain by this new technology (laser).

In agreement with the result by Shi et al.,[41] Ren et al.,[42] and Eslamian et al.,[43] LLLT shows a significant decrease of pain in interval duration, and the pain can be reduced after placement of separators effectively at 6 h, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd day, without adverse effect reports. Furthermore, our results agree with the results by Sakurai et al.,[44] who found that the LLLT had significantly lower mean pain scores for both spontaneous pains and with the teeth in occlusion. On the other hand, our finding in this study is dissimilar to the finding of Lim et al.,[8] who found that the LLLT did not demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in orthodontic pain. Esper and Arisawa,[45] also compared the effects of LLLT and low-level LED therapy in reducing orthodontic pain and showed no significant decreases in pain levels for the laser group. These contradicting results may be due to intersubject variations that may give different results in pain perception.

Previous studies reported that the perception of orthodontic pain can be affected by various factors such as age, gender, emotional status, and past pain experience.[46] Turhani et al. reported a smaller difference in pain intensity between laser and placebo groups among patients over 18 years old compared with those under 19 years.[47] They also found that women appeared to recover more quickly than men under laser therapy, suggesting variations in the effects of diode LLLT among different populations. The results of the present study show that there is only a statistically significant difference between pain degree for the case group and pain degree for the control group at baseline; this may be due to the immediate action and effect of the laser on the nerve fibers. This postulation needs to be studied.


  Conclusion Top

LLLT is effective in decreasing pain and discomfort after placement of separators for fixed orthodontic appliances. Laser treatment delayed the increases of the intensity of pain and discomfort as it appeared after 72 hours, while the group of patients treated with no laser, the intensity increased after 24 hours.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Merskey H, Albe Fessard D, Bonica J, Carmon A, Dubner R, Kerr F, et al. Pain terms: A list with definitions and notes on usage. Recommended by the IASP subcommittee on taxonomy. Pain 1979;6:249-52.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Charltotte S. The anatomy and physiology of pain. Surgery 2016;34:55-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Alhashimi N, Frithiof L, Brudvik P, Bakhiet M. Orthodontic tooth movement and de novo synthesis of proinflammatory cytokines. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119:307-12.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Fernandes LM, Ogaard B, Skoglund L. Pain and discomfort experienced after placement of a conventional or a superelastic NiTi aligning archwire. A randomized clinical trial. J Orofac Orthop 1998;59:331-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Ngan P, Kess B, Wilson S. Perception of discomfort by patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:47-53.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Soltis JE, Bowman DC. Changes in ability of patients to differentiate intensity of forces applied to maxillary central incisors during orthodontic treatment. J Dent Res 1971;50:590-6.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Jones ML. An investigation into the initial discomfort caused by placement of an archwire. Eur J Orthod 1984;6:48-54.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Lim HM, Lew KK, Tay DK. A clinical investigation of the efficacy of low level laser therapy in reducing orthodontic postadjustment pain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:614-22.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Harazaki M, Takahashi H, Ito A, Isshiki Y. Soft laser irradiation induced pain reduction in orthodontic treatment. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll 1998;39:95-101.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Harazaki M, Isshiki Y. Soft laser irradiation effects on pain reduction in orthodontic treatment. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll 1997;38:291-5.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Kon K. In vivo study of low power laser irradiation on new bone formation of rat calvaria defect. J Jpn Soc Laser Dent 1992;3:35-44.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Wakabayashi HH, Matsumoto K, Nakayama T. Electophysiological study of irradiation of semiconductor laser on activity of trigeminal subnucleus caudal neurons. J Jpn Soc Laser Dent 1992;3:65-74.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Nalcaci R, Cokakoglu S. Lasers in orthodontics. Eur J Dent 2013;7 Suppl 1:S119-25.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Fork L. Laser stimulation of nerve cells in aplasia. Science 1971;171:901-8.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Vizi E, Tisza S, Mester A. Acetylcholine releasing effect of laser irradiation on Auerbach=s plexus in guinea pig ileum. J Neural Transm 1977;40:305-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Ponnudurai ZV, Wu WH. Hypoalgesia effect of laser photostimulation shown by rat tail flick test. Acupunct Electrother Res 1987;12:93-100.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Chen K, Fujita K, Ishii J, Hirata T, Fujisawa H. Neurite elongation from cultured dorsal root ganglion cells is inhibited by Ga-Al-As diode laser irradiation. Lasers Life Sci 1993;5:237-42.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Bergius M, Berggren U, Kiliaridis S. Experience of pain during an orthodontic procedure. Eur J Oral Sci 2002;110:92-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Erdinç AM, Dinçer B. Perception of pain during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:79-85.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Krukemeyer AM, Inglehart MR. Pain and orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 2009;79:1175-81.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Bergius M, Kiliaridis S, Berggren U. Pain in orthodontics. A review and discussion of the literature. J Orofac Orthop 2000;61:125-37.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Krishnan V. Orthodontic pain: From causes to management – A review. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:170-9.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Plagmann HC, König J, Bernimoulin JP, Rudhart AC, Deschner J. A clinical study comparing two high-fluoride dentifrices for the treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity. Quintessence Int 1997;28:403-8.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Lesaffre E, Needleman I, Worthington H. The design and analysis of split mouth studies: What statisticians and clinicians should know. Stat Med 2009;28:3470-82.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Antczak-Bouckoms AA, Tulloch JF, Berkey CS. Split-mouth and cross-over designs in dental research. J Clin Periodontol 1990;17:446-53.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Scott J, Huskisson EC. Graphic representation of pain. Pain 1976;2:175-84.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Campos MJ, Fraga MR, Raposo NR, Ferreira AP, Vitral RW. Assessment of pain experience in adults and children after bracket bonding and initial archwire insertion. Dent Press J Orthod 2013;18:32-7.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Giannopoulou CD, Kiliaridis S. Pain discomfort and crevicular fluid changes induced by orthodontc elastc separators in children. J Pain 2006;7:367-76.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. Lancet 1974;2:1127-31.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: A comparison of six methods. Pain 1986;27:117-26.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Sandhu SS, Sandhu J. Orthodontic pain: An interaction between age and sex in early and middle adolescence. Angle Orthod 2013;83:966-72.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Lew KK. Attitudes and perceptions of adults towards orthodontic treatment in an Asian community. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1993;21:31-5.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Xiaoting L, Yin T, Yangxi C. Interventions for pain during fixed orthodontic appliance therapy. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2010;80:925-32.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Aldrees AM. Intensity of pain due to separators in adolescent orthodontic patients. J Orthod Sci 2015;4:118-22.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Bondemark LF, Ilros S. Separaton effect and percepton of pain and discomfort from two types of orthodontic separators. World J Orthod 2004;5:172-6.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Scheurer PA, Firestone AR, Bürgin WB. Perception of pain as a result of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Eur J Orthod 1996;18:349-57.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Ngan P, Shanfeld J, Amini H. The effect of ibuprofen on the level of discomfort in patients undergoing orthodontc treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:88-95.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Wilson SN, Kess B. Time course of the discomfort in young patients undergoing orthodontc treatment. Pediatr Dent 1989;11:107-10.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Cureton SL. Comparison of three types of separators in adult patents. J Clin Orthod 1997;31:172-7.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
An Y. An evaluation of preemptive valdecoxib therapy on discomfort caused by initial arch wire placement in adult orthodontic patients. Tex Dent J 2005;122:673.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Shi Q, Yang S, Jia F, Xu J. Does low level laser therapy relieve the pain caused by the placement of the orthodontic separators? A meta-analysis. Head Face Med 2015;11:28.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Ren C, McGrath C, Yang Y. The effectiveness of low-level diode laser therapy on orthodontic pain management: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lasers Med Sci 2015;30:1881-93.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Eslamian L, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Hassanzadeh-Azhiri A, Badiee MR, Fekrazad R. The effect of 810-nm low-level laser therapy on pain caused by orthodontic elastomeric separators. Lasers Med Sci 2014;29:559-64.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Sakurai Y, Yamaguchi M, Abiko Y. Inhibitory effect of low-level laser irradiation on LPS-stimulated prostaglandin E2 production and cyclooxygenase-2 in human gingival fibroblasts. Eur J Oral Sci 2000;108:29-34.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Esper MA, Arisawa EA. The effect of two phototherapy protocols on pain control in orthodontic procedure – A preliminary clinical study. Lasers Med Sci 2011;26:657-63.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Polat Ö. Pain and discomfort after orthodontic appointments. Semin Orthod 2007;13:292-300.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Turhani D, Scheriau M, Kapral D, Benesch T, Jonke E, Bantleon HP. Pain relief by single low-level laser irradiation in orthodontic patients undergoing fixed appliance therapy.   Back to cited text no. 47
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed98    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded18    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal