<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<sec>
<h3>Objectives</h3>
<p>To evaluate patients’ perceptions of pain and discomfort during tooth separation and to compare the effectiveness of brass wire and elastomeric separators.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Methods</h3>
<p>The participants were 87 adults with a mean age of 22.1 ± 1.9 years. Elastomeric and brass wire separators were inserted mesial and distal to upper right (elastomeric separators) and upper left first molars (brass wire separators) in each subject. After seven days, the amount of tooth separation was measured with a leaf gauge, and pain perception and discomfort were evaluated with a visual analogue scale and questionnaire.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Results</h3>
<p>The elastomeric separators produced significantly more separation than the wire separators. There was a statistically significant difference in the subjects’ perceptions of pain and discomfort at rest and during chewing between the different separators (<italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.001). In general, the brass wire separators caused the greatest pain and discomfort immediately after insertion. Pain from the wire separators subsided over seven days, whereas elastomeric separators caused the greatest pain on the first two days after insertion. Eating was negatively influenced by the separation in 61 per cent of the subjects on the first day. On the other hand, other daily activities were affected minimally.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Conclusions</h3>
<p>The different levels of pain and discomfort caused by these separators, together with their advantages and disadvantages, can help the clinician to choose an appropriate separator. Patients should be warned that pain due to separation may affect their chewing, social life, school work and sleeping. Analgesics and soft food are recommended following placement of separators.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>

Objectives
To evaluate patients’ perceptions of pain and discomfort during tooth separation and to compare the effectiveness of brass wire and elastomeric separators.


Methods
The participants were 87 adults with a mean age of 22.1 ± 1.9 years. Elastomeric and brass wire separators were inserted mesial and distal to upper right (elastomeric separators) and upper left first molars (brass wire separators) in each subject. After seven days, the amount of tooth separation was measured with a leaf gauge, and pain perception and discomfort were evaluated with a visual analogue scale and questionnaire.


Results
The elastomeric separators produced significantly more separation than the wire separators. There was a statistically significant difference in the subjects’ perceptions of pain and discomfort at rest and during chewing between the different separators (p < 0.001). In general, the brass wire separators caused the greatest pain and discomfort immediately after insertion. Pain from the wire separators subsided over seven days, whereas elastomeric separators caused the greatest pain on the first two days after insertion. Eating was negatively influenced by the separation in 61 per cent of the subjects on the first day. On the other hand, other daily activities were affected minimally.


Conclusions
The different levels of pain and discomfort caused by these separators, together with their advantages and disadvantages, can help the clinician to choose an appropriate separator. Patients should be warned that pain due to separation may affect their chewing, social life, school work and sleeping. Analgesics and soft food are recommended following placement of separators.

Perception of pain and discomfort during tooth separation

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

{"article-title":"Perception of pain and discomfort during tooth separation"}

Objectives
To evaluate patients’ perceptions of pain and discomfort during tooth separation and to compare the effectiveness of brass wire and elastomeric...

Perception of pain and discomfort during tooth separation

Published Online: Dec 14, 2023

Page range: 110 - 115

Received: Jan 01, 2009

Accepted: May 01, 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2009-0016

© 2009 Didem Nalbantgil et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.