Dataset Information

Perceived Pain during Rapid Maxillary Expansion (RME): Trends, Anatomical Distinctions, and Age and Gender Correlations.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To investigate pain trends and characteristics of different facial districts in patients undergoing rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and its possible correlations with age and gender.

Materials and methods

85 subjects (45 males and 40 females) undergoing RME were selected and analyzed during first two weeks of treatment. Patients rated daily two types of pain perception: the general perceived pain (GPP), i.e., the pain overall perceived in the face, and the local perceived pain (LPP), i.e., the pain perceived locally in the following anatomical areas: anterior palate (APA), posterior palate (PPA), nasal (NA), joint (JA), and zygomatic (ZA). Patients were provided the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (FPS) to correctly assess their GPP and LPP. Pearson correlation coefficient and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were, respectively, used to define the linear relationship between all the variables considered and to verify whether the response variables (gender and age) were significantly different (α < 0.05).

Results

Sample's mean age was 10.11 years. Average pain values of GPP and LPP progressively rise from day 1 to days 2-3 (pain peak) and tended to decrease until day 14, with a linear decrease for GPP and a not linear decrease for LPP. PPA and APA resulted the most painful areas, followed, respectively, by JA, ZA, and NA. Statistically significant differences resulted in average pain values according to patients' age and gender, both in GPP and LPP.

Conclusion

RME causes perception of pain in several maxillofacial areas. Pain reported during RME resulted positively correlated with age and gender of patients.

SUBMITTER: Serritella E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8295004 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of the current systematic review was to compare the clinical effects of bone-borne or hybrid tooth-bone-borne rapid maxillary expansion (RME) with conventional tooth-borne RME in the treatment of maxillary deficiency.MethodsNine databases were searched up to September 2018 for randomized clinical trials comparing bone-borne or hybrid tooth-bone-borne RME to conventional tooth-borne RME in patients of any age or sex. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment with the Cochrane tool, random effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by assessment of the quality of evidence with GRADE.ResultsA total of 12 papers on 6 unique trials with 264 patients (42.4% male; average age 12.3 years) were finally included. Limited evidence indicated that bone-borne RME was associated with greater suture opening at the first molar post-retention (1 trial; MD 2.0 mm; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.6 mm; moderate evidence quality) compared to tooth-borne RME, while no significant differences could be found regarding tooth inclination, nasal cavity width, and root resorption (very low to low evidence quality). Hybrid tooth-bone-borne RME was associated with less buccal tipping of the first premolar (2 trials; MD - 4.0°; 95% CI - 0.9 to - 7.1°; moderate evidence quality) and lower nasal airway resistance post-retention (1 trial; MD - 0.2 Pa s/cm3; 95% CI - 0.4 to 0 Pa s/cm3; moderate evidence quality) compared to tooth-borne RME, while no significant difference could be found regarding skeletal maxillary width, molar inclination, and analgesic use (low to moderate evidence quality). The main limitations affecting the validity of the present findings were (a) imprecision due to the inclusion of few trials with limited sample sizes that precluded robust detection of existing differences and (b) methodological issues of the included trials that could lead to bias.ConclusionsLimited evidence from randomized trials indicates that bone-borne or hybrid tooth-bone-borne RME might present advantages in terms of increased sutural opening, reduced tooth tipping, and lower nasal airway resistance compared to conventional tooth-borne RME. However, the limited number of existing studies and issues in their conduct or reporting preclude the drawing of definite conclusions.Review registrationPROSPERO ( CRD42017079107 ).

Project description:BackgroundMaxillary protraction with or without expansion is a widely known orthopedic treatment modality in growing skeletal Class III patients. However, limited data are available regarding the outcomes of long-term changes in the maxilla. Aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of the long-term maxillary anteroposterior changes following a facemask therapy with or without rapid maxillary expansion in growing skeletal Class III patients.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using the databases of PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, published up to Sep. 2020, with maxillary protraction and/or expansion as keywords were included in this meta-analysis. Risk of bias within and across studies were assessed using the Cochrane tools (RoB2.0 and ROBINS-I) and GRADE approach. Overall and subgroup comparisons with the random-effect model were performed in this meta-analysis. Meta-regression models were designed to determine potential heterogeneity.ResultsThere was a statistically significant increase (Mean difference, 2.29°; 95% confidence interval, 1.86-2.73; and p < 0.001 after facemask (FM) protraction. Mean difference, 1.73°; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-2.11; and p < 0.001 after rapid maxillary expansion(RME) and facemask protraction) in the Sella-Nasion-A point (SNA) angle in the treatment groups as compared with the control groups, when measured during the less than 3-year follow-up period. However, no statistically significant changes (Mean difference, 0.28°; 95% confidence interval, -0.57-1.13; and p = 0.52 after facemask protraction. Mean difference, 0.34°; 95% confidence interval, -0.64-1.33; and p = 0.50 after rapid maxillary expansion and facemask protraction) were observed in the SNA angle in the groups, when measured after 3 years of follow-up. Meta-regression analysis also showed that with increased follow-up duration, the effectiveness of maxillary protraction decreased.ConclusionThis meta-analysis revealed that maxillary protraction therapy could be effective for a short-term in correcting maxillary hypoplasia and the treatment result was not affected by mean age and sex. However, with increased follow-up duration, the sagittal maxillary changes gradually decreased. Limitations on this review were only the SNA angle was used and clinical heterogeneity was not discussed. The quality of evidence was moderate. Further long-term observational studies are necessary for a comprehensive evaluation of the effects on maxillary skeletal changes.