Case Report

Year : 2022 | Volume : 13 | Issue : 1 | Page : 36-39

LIMITED OUTCOME ORTHODONTICS- TWO CASE REPORTS

Mohamed Iqbal J 1, Dharshini V 2, Aruna V 3

1 Senior Assistant Professor, 2,3 Interns, Department of Orthodontics, TNGDC Hospital, Chennai

ABSTRACT

There is an increasing trend in adults seeking orthodontic treatment. Visibility of braces and duration of treatment are factors detrimental to patients choice of having orthodontic treatment as well as their satisfaction with the outcome. Adult orthodontics is unique both in the treatment goals as well as tissue response. Realistic goals with adjuvant procedures and short duration of treatment are preferred. We present two cases of “Limited outcome orthodontics” in adult patients with localized malalignment, successfully managed within a very short duration of 5 months.

Keywords- Adult orthodontics, Limited outcome Orthodontics, Short term orthodontics

SOURCE OF FUNDING

The author of this review has no funding sources to declare.

How To Cite This Article:

Dharshini V, Mohamed Iqbal, & Aruna V. (2022). LIMITED OUTCOME ORTHODONTICS- TWO CASE REPORTS. International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation, 13(1), 36–39. https://doi.org/10.56501/intjorthodrehabil.v13i1.3.

Original Article

Year : 2022 | Volume : 13 | Issue : 1 | Page : 23-27

PATIENT’S PERCEPTION OF PAIN AND DISCOMFORT DURING MAXILLARY ARCH EXPANSION USING TWO DIFFERENT APPLIANCES - A PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

Dr. Nilesh Suresh 1 , Dr. Ravindra Kumar Jain 2

Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences

Saveetha University, Chennai 600 077

ABSTRACT:

Aim:

To evaluate and compare perceived pain and discomfort levels experienced by subjects treated with tooth-borne (Hyrax) and bone-borne (MARPE) Maxillary expansion appliances.

Materials and Methods:

Ten subjects (7 boys and 3 girls) with a mean age of 15.8(+/- 2.8) years were randomized into two groups. Group A received a MARPE appliance anchored using mini-implants in the anterior palate and group B received a conventional Hyrax appliance. A self-assessment questionnaire on pain intensity, discomfort and analgesic consumption was given to subjects on the review visit and responses were collected. Descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney U test was done to compare the mean of pain and discomfort levels between the two groups.

Results:

All 10 subjects answered the questionnaire. More pain was experienced in the posterior teeth region by subjects treated with MARPE (p<0.05). No significant intergroup difference in pain levels experienced in the anterior region, palatal vault and the head region and analgesic consumption was noted. (p>0.05)

Conclusions:

Although both Hyrax and MARPE were generally well tolerated there was a significantly higher pain experience in posterior teeth region for subjects treated with MARPE.

Key Words: Maxillary expansion; Pain and discomfort; Mini-implants; Questionnaire

DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS:

The Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

FUNDING:

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

How to Cite This Article:

Nilesh Suresh, & Ravindra Kumar. (2022). PATIENT’S PERCEPTION OF PAIN AND DISCOMFORT DURING MAXILLARY ARCH EXPANSION USING TWO DIFFERENT APPLIANCES - A PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY: Original Article. International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation, 13(1), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.56501/intjorthodrehabil.v13i1.5