Pasupureddi Keerthana; Meghna Mukhopadhyay; Rajasri Diddige; Shubhnita Verma; Pradeep Raj; Prasad Chitra
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of the current study was to compare the amount of separation obtained by two various elastomeric separators, as well as the pain perception and gingival health. Methods: A randomized split-mouth study was performed on 60 patients receiving fixed orthodontic treatment who ...
Read More
Objectives: The objective of the current study was to compare the amount of separation obtained by two various elastomeric separators, as well as the pain perception and gingival health. Methods: A randomized split-mouth study was performed on 60 patients receiving fixed orthodontic treatment who were put randomly in one of two separator groups (Group 1: Elastomeric separators; Group 2: Safe-T separators). At the end of the 5-day study, the amount of separation was evaluated using a feeler gauge. Qualitative and quantitative pain assessment was performed using a patient-filled VAS (visual analogue scale) score and a questionnaire. Loe and Silness gingival index was used to examine gingival health at the time of placement and removal of separators. Student t-Test was used to compare mean VAS scores and the amount of separation followed by repeated measures of ANOVA and Bonferroni’s post hoc analysis. Chi Square Test was utilized to compare gingival index scores followed by the marginal homogeneity test comparing the 1st and 5th day. Reproducibility of measurements underwent assessment using intra-class correlation coefficients. Results: Greater statistically significant amounts of separation (0.126 mm) was achieved by Safe-T separators than conventional elastomeric separators. Patients experienced maximum pain and discomfort with the use of conventional elastomeric separators. Amount of soft tissue injury and bleeding was greater with elastomeric separators with a mean gingival score of 3.Conclusion: Safe-T separators separate teeth optimally with minimal injury and discomfort to soft tissues, which makes them the better choice for clinicians.
Sara Soheilifar; Sanaz Soheilfar; Bahareh Javanshir; Milad Malekshoar; Zeinab Mohamadi
Abstract
Objectives: Considering the changes in periodontal parameters after orthodontic treatment and lack of adequate evidence on the return of these parameters to normal, the aim of this study was to evaluate the time needed for recovery of periodontal parameters to normal after debonding.Methods: In this ...
Read More
Objectives: Considering the changes in periodontal parameters after orthodontic treatment and lack of adequate evidence on the return of these parameters to normal, the aim of this study was to evaluate the time needed for recovery of periodontal parameters to normal after debonding.Methods: In this prospective study, 24 patients (21 females and 3 males) with a mean age of 18.86 ± 4.64 years were included, who were in the final stage of their orthodontic treatment and ready for debonding of orthodontic brackets. The most important inclusion criteria were: No history of periodontal problems, no extensive restorations and caries, no smoking, no systemic disorders and no calculus. In each session, the patients were given oral health instructions and then probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI) and bleeding on probing (BOP) of the first molars and central incisors of each quadrant were evaluated at the time of debonding (T1), and one (T2), two (T3) and three (T4) months later; in patients who did not return to normal status (GI ≤ 0.5, negative BOP, PD ≤ 3 mm) after 3 months, the measurements were repeated in subsequent months (up to 6 months). ANOVA followed by pairwise Tukey comparisons were used for determining differences in PD, GI, BOP and PI between the time intervals. Results: In general, all the parameters were decreased from T1 to T4. Furthermore, comparisons between different intervals using post hoc Tukey test showed that decreases in PD of the buccal surface and proximal surface in comparison to debonding time were significant during the first and second months, respectively (P < 0.05). Interpretation of statistical data showed a significant reduction in GI after two months. BOP became negative and significantly different after one month in half of the teeth and two months in the other teeth. PI generally decreased from T1 to T4.Conclusions: Based on the results of this study, periodontal parameters returned to normal one to two months after debonding.