Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The effect of physical interventions on pain control after orthodontic treatment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

  • Junxiong Li,

    Roles Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Stomatology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China

    ⨯
  • Siyu Li,

    Roles Software

    Affiliation Department of Stomatology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China

    ⨯
  • Hongjun Chen,

    Roles Software

    Affiliation Department of Stomatology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China

    ⨯
  • Jingzhe Feng,

    Roles Software

    Affiliation Department of Stomatology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China

    ⨯
  • Ya Qiu,

    Roles Methodology

    Affiliation Medical Research Center, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China

    ⨯
  • Lihua Li

    Roles Methodology

    angel_li77@163.com

    Affiliation Department of Stomatology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China

    ⨯

Abstract

Objective

Pain is a frequent adverse reaction during orthodontic treatment, which can significantly reduce treatment compliance and compromise the expected treatment effect. Physical interventions have been used to alleviate pain after orthodontic treatment, but their effectiveness is controversial. This study used a network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of various physical interventions typically used in managing pain after orthodontic treatment, with a view to provide evidence-based recommendations for representative interventions for orthodontic pain relief during peak pain intensity.

Methods

A systematic search of six electronic databases, from their respective inception dates, was conducted to identify relevant literature on the efficacy of various typical physical interventions for managing pain after orthodontic treatment. Literature screening was performed according to the Cochrane System Evaluator’s Manual. Stata 16.0 was used to assess heterogeneity, inconsistency, publication bias, and sensitivity to generate an evidence network diagram and conduct a network meta-analysis.

Results

In total, 771 articles were reviewed to collect literature on interventions, including low-level laser therapy (LLLT), vibration, acupuncture, and chewing. Of these, 28 studies using a visual analog scale (VAS) as an outcome indicator were included. The results showed that LLLT, vibration, acupuncture, and chewing effectively relieved the pain symptoms in patients after orthodontic treatment. At 24 h post-treatment, LLLT (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] = 80.8) and vibration (SUCRA = 71.1) were the most effective interventions. After 48 h of treatment, acupuncture (SUCRA = 89.6) showed a definite advantage as the best intervention.

Conclusion

LLLT, vibration, acupuncture, and chewing can alleviate pain associated with orthodontic treatment. Among these interventions, acupuncture was found to be the most effective at 48 h after orthodontic treatment. In addition, acupuncture demonstrated long-lasting and stable pain-relieving effects. However, further studies are needed to determine the most suitable equipment-specific parameters for acupuncture in relieving pain associated with orthodontic treatment.

Citation: Li J, Li S, Chen H, Feng J, Qiu Y, Li L (2024) The effect of physical interventions on pain control after orthodontic treatment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 19(2): e0297783. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783

Editor: Abbas Farmany, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN

Received: June 14, 2023; Accepted: January 12, 2024; Published: February 22, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Li et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding: The author received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The average duration of orthodontic treatment is approximately 24 months [1], which implies the importance of patient compliance for effective treatment [2]. Pain is a frequent adverse reaction during orthodontic treatment, with an incidence rate of 72–100% [3]. It is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with or resembling actual or potential tissue damage [4]. Generalized orthodontic pain refers to any pain sensation caused by orthodontic appliances, such as mucosal ulcers, tongue discomfort, or gum damage. It can be experienced as discomfort, sensitivity, and pain in the teeth, which is typically attributed to tooth movement [5]. Orthodontic pain not only reduces quality of life but also affects pronunciation. The pain may lead to negative emotions that can cause short-term memory loss and learning disabilities [6]. Patients with dental anxiety may experience more severe pain after orthodontic treatment, which can significantly reduce treatment compliance and compromise the expected treatment effect [7]. The pain may even cause some patients to discontinue treatment prematurely because of their inability to tolerate the discomfort [8]. This is particularly true for removable mobility appliances. The most intense pain experienced after orthodontic treatment occurs within the first 24–48 h [9].

Pain typically motivates individuals to seek means of alleviation. However, conventional methods cannot alleviate pain in patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment. The use of physical interventions, such as low-level laser therapy (LLLT), vibration therapy, chewing therapy, and acupuncture, to alleviate pain after orthodontic treatment has been a topic of significant research in recent years. However, their effectiveness is controversial due to differences in experimental design, equipment parameters, and other factors among studies, leading to variable results.

To address this issue, we have conducted a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of these physical interventions typically used for pain reduction after orthodontic treatment.

Methods

This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Network Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-NMA) guidelines (S1 Table) and was registered at PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; CRD42022304883).

Search strategy

We conducted a thorough online search for eligible studies in five electronic databases: China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WangFang Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System (SinoMed), PubMed, and Cochrane Library, from their respective inception dates up to May 31, 2023. We limited publications to those in the English and Chinese languages. The MeSH terms used in this study included orthodontics, pain, LLLT, vibration, chewing, acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS), and visual analog scale (VAS). The PubMed search strategies are shown in Table 1, as a representative example. The search items were appropriately adjusted to meet the requirements of each database in order to ensure the basic logical integrity of the search.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Strategies used for searching PubMed for eligible publications.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.t001

Inclusion criteria

We included publications on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which patients received their first orthodontic appliances (regardless of appliance brand, archwire model, applied force, amount of movement, and wearing frequency). The experimental group adopted LLLT, vibration, chewing (e.g., chewing gum), or acupuncture as treatment. Acupuncture included classical acupuncture, TENS, and TEAS, while the control group underwent routine treatment without any special intervention. Outcome indicators included VAS scores at 24–48 h after initiating orthodontic treatment.

Exclusion criteria

We excluded non-RCT publications, as empirical evidence indicated that intervention effects in orthodontic research appear to be inflated in non-RCTs compared to those in RCTs [10]. We also excluded in vitro and animal studies or studies in which research participants included non-first-time orthodontic patients. Studies in which treatment did not involve physical interventions, such as LLLT, vibration, chewing, and acupuncture; in which the outcome indicators did not include VAS scores; or from which data could not be extracted were excluded. Moreover, papers that were not written in Chinese or English were excluded.

Study selection

Two trained reviewers (JX and SY) independently screened the titles and abstracts based on the inclusion criteria. The full texts of potentially eligible studies were assessed by the same reviewers. For studies in which the full text was inaccessible or those that had incomplete data, the original authors were contacted via email. If they could not be reached after three consecutive attempts or if the studies were confirmed to be inaccessible, the publications were excluded. In cases of discrepancies between the two reviewers, a third professional reviewer (LH) was consulted to achieve consensus.

Data collection

We extracted the following data from the publications: author information, publication year, orthodontic correction method, type of vibration device, vibration frequency, vibration force, vibration time, laser frequency, laser power, laser irradiation time, chewing frequency, current intensity, current stimulation time, pain assessment timing, outcome indicators (VAS scores), and other relevant data.

Quality assessment

Risk of bias was assessed by two authors (HJ and JZ), utilizing the Cochrane Handbook 5.1.0 version of the quality evaluation system [11], based on seven items to identify whether papers met the criteria for low, unclear, or high risk of bias. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussions with a third reviewer (YQ). The RoB2.0 risk bias summary chart [12] was generated using Review Manager 5.4 software (The Cochrane Collaborative, version 5.3, Cochrane IMS).

Data analysis

Stata software (version 16.0; StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA) was used to conduct the meta-analysis using the VAS score as the continuous outcome indicator. The mean difference (MD), standard deviation (SD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect indicators. Heterogeneity between research results was determined using I2 (test level = 0.1), where I2>50% and P<0.1 indicated significant heterogeneity. In cases of significant heterogeneity, a random-effects model was employed, and sensitivity analysis was conducted using Stata v16.0. Subgroup analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05.

Stata v16.0 was also used to conduct a network meta-analysis. The “mvmeta” program was used to generate evidence network diagrams, evidence contribution diagrams, and funnel plots. To detect inconsistencies in the closed loop, the difference between the direct and indirect results was calculated. The inconsistency factor was determined using a Z-test, and the P-value of the Z-test was used to determine the presence of inconsistencies: P>0.05 indicated no inconsistency. Furthermore, the publication bias or small-sample effect of each intervention measure was determined separately, based on direct comparative data. The funnel plot, a tool utilized in Begg’s linear regression analysis, considered the magnitude and accuracy (in terms of the reciprocal of the standard error) of each study. A symmetric graph with a P>0.05 suggested absence of publication bias or small-sample effect in the meta-analysis.

The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) is a tool used to rank the effectiveness of different treatment methods and to determine the most optimal treatment plan. Its value ranges from 0 to 100. PrBest values also range between 0 and 100, with values closer to 100 indicating a greater likelihood of being the best intervention.

Results

Study selection

The two researchers initially identified 771 relevant studies from various databases, including 277 articles on LLLT, 21 on vibration, 354 on chewing, and 120 on acupuncture. After comparing the search results of the major databases, 109 duplicate articles were excluded. After carefully reading the titles and abstracts, 477 irrelevant articles were excluded. After assessing the full text, 157 articles were excluded as they reported on in vitro experiments, non-RCTs, reviews, systematic evaluations, and meta-analyses or did not allow extraction of effective data. Finally, 28 articles [13–40] were included. The literature screening process is illustrated in Fig 1.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Flow chart of study selection.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.g001

Study characteristics

The 28 included articles [13–40] measured the VAS score as outcome indicator at 24 h after initiating orthodontic treatment, while 22 articles [14–20, 22–24, 26–29, 32, 34–40] measured this outcome indicator at 48 h. Table 2 shows the characteristics of the included studies.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Characteristics of included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.t002

Risk of bias within studies

The specific experimental details of the included studies are shown in Table 3. Among the included studies, 17 had low risk of bias [13–15, 19–26, 28–31, 36, 37], four had unclear risk of bias [16, 17, 33, 38], and seven had high risk of bias [18, 27, 31–33, 39, 40], as shown in Fig 2A and 2B.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2.

A. Risk of bias summary. B. Risk of bias graph.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.g002

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Implementation details of the studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.t003

Effects of pain control intervention after orthodontic treatment

LLLT.

In terms of the use of LLLT, 17 articles [13–28, 36] included VAS scores at 24 h after initiating orthodontic treatment, while 14 articles [14–20, 22–24, 26–28, 36] included the VAS score at 48 h after initiating orthodontic treatment. The total sample size was 810. Heterogeneity was significant at both 24 and 48 h after treatment; therefore, a random-effects model was chosen. The difference between 24 h (MD = -1.07, 95% CI [-1.56, -0.58], P<0.001) (Table 4, S1 Fig) and 48 h (MD = -0.58, 95% CI [-0.94, -0.22], P = 0.002) (Table 5, S2 Fig) was statistically significant. Thus, LLLT intervention resulted in a significant decrease in VAS pain scores of patients at 24 and 48 h after initiating orthodontic treatment.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 4. Meta-analysis results of different interventions after 24 h.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.t004

thumbnail
Download:
Table 5. Meta-analysis results of different interventions after 48 h.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.t005

Vibration.

In terms of the use of vibration for orthodontic pain, six studies [29–34] calculated the VAS scores at 24 h and three studies [29, 32, 34] measured VAS scores at 48 h after initiating orthodontic treatment. The total sample size was 249. Heterogeneity was significant at 24 h after treatment; therefore, a random-effects model was used. However, due to the limited number of studies, a fixed-effect model was used to evaluate the effect of vibration at 48 h [41]. The difference between the postoperative pain levels at 24 h (MD = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.04, -0.33], P<0.001) (Table 4, S3 Fig) and at 48 h (MD = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.11, -0.36], P<0.001) (Table 5, S4 Fig) was statistically significant, indicating that vibration therapy can alleviate the severe pain associated with orthodontic treatment.

Chewing.

Four studies evaluated the effect of chewing on the VAS pain scores at 24 h and 48 h after initiating orthodontic treatment [34–37]. The final sample size was 214. As only four studies with limited available research data were included, the Mantel–Haenszel method with a fixed effects model was used. The difference between 24 h (MD = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.79, -0.24], P<0.001) (Table 4, S5 Fig) and 48 h (MD = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.76, -0.21], P<0.001) (Table 5, S6 Fig) was statistically significant. These findings suggest that chewing therapy can effectively alleviate pain following orthodontic treatment.

Acupuncture.

Three studies with a sample size of 151 assessed the VAS pain scores at 24 and 48 h after initiating orthodontic treatment [38–40]. The heterogeneity test results showed low heterogeneity; thus, the Mantel–Haenszel test with a fixed effects model was used. We found a statistically significant difference between 24 h ([MD = -1.48, 95% CI (-1.85, -1.12), P<0.001) (Table 4, S7 Fig) and 48 h (MD = -1.67, 95% CI (-2.05, -1.30), P<0.001) (Table 5, S8 Fig) in terms of relief of pain sensation. It can be concluded that acupuncture can significantly relieve pain sensation after orthodontic treatment.

Network meta-analysis

Fig 3A and 3B illustrate the network structure at two different time points. Ten pairs of comparisons were made between the two time points. Six pairs were directly compared, whereas four pairs of indirect comparisons were generated through a network meta-analysis (acupuncture vs. LLLT, acupuncture vs. chewing, acupuncture vs. vibration, LLLT vs. vibration). The control group had the largest sample size, followed by the LLLT group.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Network graphs for various outcomes.

(A) Outcomes at 24 h after treatment; (B) Outcomes at 48 h after treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.g003

After 24 h of physical intervention, the sorting chart (Fig 4) and sorting results (Table 6) showed that the SUCRA value was the highest in the LLLT group (80.8), followed by the vibration therapy group (71.1), and the lowest in the control group (30.1). The PrBest value was the highest in the LLLT group (38.2), followed by the vibration therapy group (45.7), and 0 in the control group. The MeanRank value showed that LLLT and vibration therapy ranked as the top two treatments. Based on these results, it can be concluded that LLLT and vibration therapy are effective intervention measures.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 4. SUCRA probability ranking after 24 h of treatment.

SUCRA, surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.g004

thumbnail
Download:
Table 6. Sorting results after 24 h of treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.t006

After 48 h of implementation of various physical interventions, the results indicated that acupuncture had the highest SUCRA value (89.6), followed by vibration therapy (59.7); the control group had the lowest value (14.6) (Fig 5, Table 7). Additionally, the PrBest value was the highest for acupuncture (65.9), followed by vibration therapy (25.3); the control group had no value. Furthermore, the MeanRank values showed that acupuncture and vibration therapy were the top two interventions. Acupuncture was found to be the most effective in relieving pain after 48 h of treatment.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 5. SUCRA probability ranking after 48 h of treatment.

SUCRA, surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.g005

thumbnail
Download:
Table 7. Sorting results after 48 h of treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.t007

Sensitivity analysis

For sensitivity analysis, we utilized a leave-one-out exclusion method to analyze the outcome indicators of VAS scores at 24 and 48 h after treatment. Each study was excluded individually before merging the effects. Sensitivity analysis did not affect the results. This indicated that the statistical analysis results of the merged effects in this meta-analysis were stable and reliable, as shown in Fig 6A and 6B.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 6. Sensitivity analysis.

(A) Outcomes at 24 h after treatment; (B) Outcomes at 48 h after treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.g006

Publication bias

Begg’s linear regression analysis was conducted for outcomes at 24 and 48 h of treatment. The results yielded P values of 0.466 and 0.537, respectively, which both exceeded the significance level of 0.05. This indicated the absence of publication bias during the study (Fig 7A and 7B).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 7. Funnel plots for publication bias.

(A) Outcomes at 24 h after treatment; (B) Outcomes at 48 h after treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.g007

Discussion

According to previous research, approximately 30% of patients who do not achieve their orthodontic goals and terminate treatment early do so because they cannot tolerate the pain [42]. The results of this meta-analysis demonstrated that vibration therapy, LLLT, chewing therapy, and acupuncture could effectively reduce pain scores measured using the VAS at 24 and 48 h after initiating orthodontic treatment. Specifically, acupuncture was found to be the most effective intervention to alleviate pain within 48 h of commencing orthodontic treatment.

Orthodontic force mechanically compresses the periodontal tissue, which hinders local blood circulation and releases inflammatory factors, neuropeptides, and other pain response-mediating factors, ultimately causing non-infectious inflammation [43]. Pain signal transduction involves multiple ion channels, including acid-sensing ion channel-3 (ASIC3) and transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1), which play vital roles in mediating orthodontic pain [44]. Orthodontic force compresses the periodontal tissue capillaries on the pressure side, resulting in local ischemia and hypoxia. This change increases anaerobic respiration in the periodontal tissue and creates an acidic microenvironment, which stimulates the opening of the ASIC3 and TRPV1 channels. These channels are highly sensitive to acidic environments (H+) and allow a large amount of Ca2+ to enter neurons, triggering nerve impulses that signal pain [44, 45]. Pain signals are carried to the cerebral cortex via the trigeminal ganglion and neuron bodies in the trigeminal caudate nucleus, which then generates pain perception [46].

Postoperative pain relief methods are typically categorized as psychotherapy, physical therapy, and drug therapy. Examples of these methods include music, self-suggestion, attention transfer, low-dose lasers, acupoint stimulation, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), traditional Chinese medicine, and other treatments [47]. Several studies have reported that NSAIDs can impede the synthesis of prostaglandins, which can lead to a decrease in the inflammation caused by periodontal ligament cells and hinder osteoclast production. Although NSAIDs can alleviate postoperative pain, they can also cause side effects that can reduce tooth movement speed by approximately 50% [48]. Moreover, indiscriminate use of NSAIDs can cause gastrointestinal bleeding [49]. The drawbacks of traditional pain-relief methods, such as uncertain efficacy, strong invasiveness, significant side effects, and low patient compliance, have made it necessary to find more efficient, safe, and comfortable methods for relieving the pain caused by orthodontic treatment.

The VAS is considered to be the most reliable method for evaluating pain perception [50]. Therefore, the VAS score was used as an outcome indicator in this meta-analysis. Pain typically occurs approximately 3 h after applying force following orthodontic surgery [51], although the timing of the most severe pain remains debated. However, severe pain is mainly concentrated between 24 and 48 h after commencing treatment [52]. Thus, this study focused on literature describing the degree of pain experienced during this period after orthodontic treatment.

The literature on vibration therapy included in this study showed significant heterogeneity, which may be attributed to the diverse types of vibrators used as well as variations in vibration force, frequency, and duration. These factors have a notable impact on VAS scores. The analgesic effects of mechanical vibration may result from the activation of cyclic guanosine 3’,5’-monophosphate-dependent Na/Ca exchange in the forward mode [11]. Vibration stimulation can decrease the levels of TRPV1 and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in the periodontal tissue after orthodontic surgery [53]. CGRP is a neuropeptide found in the periodontal tissue and is responsible for promoting pain after surgery [53]. Studies have focused on regulating CGRP through targets such as TRPV1 and nociceptin/orphanin FQ [54]. Evidence-based medical research has also shown that high-frequency vibrations can accelerate orthodontic tooth movement by promoting the differentiation of osteoblasts, fibroblasts, and osteoclasts and increasing bone remodeling; thereby accelerating the process [55, 56]. In addition, high-frequency vibrations can reduce the risk of root resorption after orthodontic treatment [57]. The research included in this study involved the use of Accelent and Vpro5 vibrators. In a comparative study conducted by Judex et al. [58], both Vpro5 and Accellent vibrators increased the proliferation and gene expression of osteoblasts, fibroblasts, and osteoclasts. However, this study showed that response to treatment was stronger with Vpro5 than with Accellent, which may be attributed to the former’s high vibration frequency. Vpro5 has a higher vibration frequency and smaller vibration amplitude than those of Accellent, making it more comfortable to use. However, the exact mechanism by which vibration reduces orthodontic pain is not fully understood. Additionally, the ideal parameters for achieving a balance between accelerated tooth movement and pain relief are still debated.

This network meta-analysis found that most studies on LLLT used diode lasers; however, the studies demonstrated significant heterogeneity. The main sources of heterogeneity may be the laser power, wavelength, irradiation range, frequency, and time. LLLT is widely used in oral clinical diagnosis and treatment because of its unique advantages in oral mucosal hemostasis, analgesia, and the promotion of periodontal tissue healing [59]. LLLT has several advantages as an orthodontic pain treatment. It has no serious side effects, causes minimal trauma, and can be used repeatedly. Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of LLLT in reducing orthodontic pain and improving the tooth movement rate [60]. According to Domínguez et al. [61], LLLT reduces the average duration of orthodontic treatment by approximately 24%. Furthermore, the acceleration of tooth movement resulting from multiple laser irradiations can be maintained throughout the treatment process. LLLT also has a positive effect on the local inflammation level of the periodontal tissue within 24 h of irradiation. LLLT irradiation can reduce the expression levels of tumor necrosis factor-α, cyclooxygenase 2, and prostaglandin E2 [62]. LLLT has been found to reduce the speed of axonal flow and decrease the membrane potential of mitochondria by vascularizing the peripheral nerves in the periodontal tissue. This reduction in vascularization leads to a decrease in the availability of adenosine triphosphate, which in turn impedes signaling in class A/C nerve fibers [63]. Dhobley et al. [64] discovered that LLLT can increase the production of β-endorphins, which are natural mediators that help reduce pain. Moreover, LLLT inhibits the release of arachidonic acid, which causes damaged cells to produce metabolites that interact with pain receptors [65]. This meta-analysis included studies that focused on the wavelength of LLLT, which was primarily concentrated above 600 nm. The optimal wavelength range for promoting orthodontic tooth movement through LLLT is between 780 nm and 830 nm, as suggested in previous research [61]. Additionally, LLLT at 830 nm has been found to have superior analgesic effects for orthodontic treatment as compared to other laser wavelengths [66].

TEAS is a novel therapeutic method that combines TENS, which is often used in sports medicine, with acupoint stimulation in Chinese acupuncture. By applying microcurrents through the skin and into acupoints, TEAS stimulates the meridian system and enhances the internal function [67]. Low-frequency (2 Hz) TEAS has been found to enhance the release of endorphins in both the brain and spinal cord. In contrast, high-frequency TEAS (100 Hz) stimulation promotes the release of dynorphins from the spinal cord [68]. A density-alternating wave (2 Hz/100 Hz) triggers the simultaneous release of endorphins, enkephalins, and dynorphins, leading to a synergistic analgesic effect [69]. However, use of TEAS should be prohibited in pregnant women and patients with pacemakers [70]. The results of this meta-analysis indicated that acupuncture did not demonstrate a significant advantage among the four physical intervention measures at 24 h after treatment. However, after 48 h of orthodontic treatment, acupuncture is more likely to be the best intervention measure with an absolute advantage. This could be because low-frequency TEAS takes longer to stimulate the production of endorphins [71], and thus takes longer to alleviate pain induced by orthodontic treatment. Nonetheless, low-frequency TEAS provides better and longer-lasting analgesic effects than does low-frequency TEAS.

Additionally, studies have shown that chewing gum can improve blood flow in the periodontal ligament, decrease the build-up of inflammatory substances that transmit pain signals, and ultimately decrease the perception of periodontal pain [72]. However, the effectiveness of chewing therapy as a means of pain control after orthodontic treatment remains debated [73]. Although our meta-analysis yielded positive results, the limited number of included studies and high levels of heterogeneity suggest the need for high-quality randomized controlled trials to confirm these findings.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis demonstrated that LLLT, vibration, acupuncture, and chewing can alleviate the pain associated with orthodontic treatment. LLLT and vibration therapy not only have significant advantages in alleviating pain after orthodontic treatment but also have the effect of accelerating tooth movement, which has good clinical application prospects. However, further research is needed to determine how to balance pain relief and tooth movement acceleration to achieve optimal results. Acupuncture has been shown to have an absolute advantage in providing long-lasting and stable pain relief 48 h after orthodontic treatment. TEAS, an innovative approach in traditional Chinese medicine, has demonstrated excellent pain relief after orthodontic treatment. Further research is required to determine the most suitable equipment parameters for acupuncture.

Supporting information

S1 Table. The PRISMA network meta-analysis checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.s001

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. Effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on pain control at 24 h after orthodontic treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.s002

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on pain control at 48 h after orthodontic treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.s003

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Effect of vibration on pain control at 24 h after orthodontic treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.s004

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Effect of vibration on pain control at 48 h after orthodontic treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.s005

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Effect of chewing on pain control at 24 h after orthodontic treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.s006

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Effect of chewing on pain control at 48 h after orthodontic treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.s007

(TIF)

S7 Fig. Effect of acupuncture on pain control at 24 h after orthodontic treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.s008

(TIF)

S8 Fig. Effect of acupuncture on pain control at 48 h after orthodontic treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297783.s009

(TIF)

References

  1. 1. Aljehani D, Baeshen HA. Effectiveness of the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index in predicting treatment time. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018;19(6): 647–650. pmid:29959290.
  2. 2. Chow J, Cioffi I. Pain and orthodontic patient compliance: a clinical perspective. Semin Orthod. 2018;24(2): 242–247.
  3. 3. Fleming PS, Al-Moghrabi D, Fudalej P, et al. Orthodontic pain: the use of non-pharmacological adjuncts and its effect on compliance. Semin Orthod. 2018;24(2): 248–258.
  4. 4. Raja SN, Carr DB, Cohen M, Finnerup NB, Flor H, Gibson S, et al. The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: concepts, challenges, and compromises. Pain. 2020;161(9): 1976–1982. pmid:32694387.
  5. 5. Long H, Wang Y, Jian F, Liao LN, Yang X, Lai WL. Current advances in orthodontic pain. Int J Oral Sci. 2016;8(2): 67–75. pmid:27341389.
  6. 6. Golež A, Frangež I, Cankar K, Frangež HB, Ovsenik M, Nemeth L. Effects of low-level light therapy on xerostomia related to hyposalivation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Lasers Med Sci. 2022;37(2): 745–758. pmid:34409539.
  7. 7. Mariano V, Achsel T, Bagni C, Kanellopoulos AK. Modelling learning and memory in Drosophila to understand intellectual disabilities. Neuroscience. 2020;445: 12–30. pmid:32730949.
  8. 8. Banerjee S, Banerjee R, Shenoy U, Agarkar S, Bhattacharya S. Effect of orthodontic pain on quality of life of patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Indian J Dent Res. 2018;29(1): 4–9. pmid:29442079.
  9. 9. Qiu N, Luo XX, Li N, Zhang W. A clinical evaluation of the low-level laser therapy for the control of pain caused by orthodontic treatment. J Pract Stomatol. 2018;34(6): 111–114.
  10. 10. Papageorgiou SN, Xavier GM, Cobourne MT. Basic study design influences the results of orthodontic clinical investigations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(12): 1512–1522. pmid:25910911.
  11. 11. Madoyan G, Azizyan A, Musheghyan G, Ayrapetyan S. The 4Hz mechanical vibration-activated Na/Ca exchange as a quantum-sensitive novel target for pain therapy. Electromagn Biol Med. 2021;40(2): 301–310. pmid:33586567.
  12. 12. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366: l4898. pmid:31462531.
  13. 13. Mirhashemi AH, Rasouli S, Shahi S, Chiniforush N. Efficacy of photobiomodulation therapy for orthodontic pain control following the placement of elastomeric separators: a randomized clinical trial. J Lasers Med Sci. 2021;12: e8. pmid:34084734.
  14. 14. Martins IP, Martins RP, Caldas SGFR, Dos Santos-Pinto A, Buschang PH, Pretel H. Low-level laser therapy (830 nm) on orthodontic pain: blinded randomized clinical trial. Lasers Med Sci. 2019;34(2): 281–286. pmid:29998356.
  15. 15. Qamruddin I, Alam MK, Mahroof V, Fida M, Khamis MF, Husein A. Effects of low-level laser irradiation on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement and associated pain with self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;152(5): 622–630. pmid:29103440.
  16. 16. Kim WT, Bayome M, Park JB, Park JH, Baek SH, Kook YA. Effect of frequent laser irradiation on orthodontic pain. A single-blind randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(4): 611–616. pmid:23241006.
  17. 17. Prasad SMV, Prasanna TR, Kumaran V, Venkatachalam N, Ramees M, Abraham EA. Low-level laser therapy: a noninvasive method of relieving postactivation orthodontic pain-A randomized controlled clinical trial. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2019;11(6): S228–S231. pmid:31198342.
  18. 18. Stein S, Korbmacher-Steiner H, Popovic N, Braun A. Pain reduced by low-level laser therapy during use of orthodontic separators in early mixed dentition. J Orofac Orthop. 2015;76(5): 431–439. pmid:26272170.
  19. 19. Almallah MME, Hajeer MY, Almahdi WH, Burhan AS, Latifeh Y, Madkhaneh SK. Assessment of a single versus double application of low-level laser therapy in pain reduction following orthodontic elastomeric separation: a randomized controlled trial. Dent Med Probl. 2020;57(1): 45–52. pmid:32307932.
  20. 20. AlSayed Hasan MMA, Sultan K, Ajaj M, Voborná I, Hamadah O. Low-level laser therapy effectiveness in reducing initial orthodontic archwire placement pain in premolars extraction cases: a single-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1): 209. pmid:32690001.
  21. 21. 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(2): 559–564. pmid:23334785.
  22. 22. Qamruddin I, Alam MK, Abdullah H, Kamran MA, Jawaid N, Mahroof V. Effects of single-dose, low-level laser therapy on pain associated with the initial stage of fixed orthodontic treatment: a randomized clinical trial. Korean J Orthod. 2018;48(2): 90–97. pmid:29564218.
  23. 23. Almallah MM, Almahdi WH, Hajeer MY. Evaluation of low level laser therapy on pain perception following orthodontic elastomeric separation: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(11): ZC23–ZC28. pmid:28050498.
  24. 24. Ren C, McGrath C, Gu M, Jin L, Zhang C, Sum FHKMH, et al. Low-level laser-aided orthodontic treatment of periodontally compromised patients: a randomised controlled trial. Lasers Med Sci. 2020;35(3): 729–739. pmid:31833004.
  25. 25. Domínguez A, Velásquez SA. Effect of low-level laser therapy on pain following activation of orthodontic final archwires: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Photomed Laser Surg. 2013;31: 36–40. pmid:23240876.
  26. 26. Qamruddin I, Alam MK, Fida M, Khan AG. Effect of a single dose of low-level laser therapy on spontaneous and chewing pain caused by elastomeric separators. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149(1): 62–66. pmid:26718379.
  27. 27. Guram G, Reddy RK, Dharamsi AM, Syed Ismail PM, Mishra S, Prakashkumar MD. Evaluation of low-level laser therapy on orthodontic tooth movement: a randomized control study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9(1): 105–109. pmid:29599594.
  28. 28. Ghaffar YKA, El Sharaby FA, Negm IM. Effect of low-level laser therapy on the time needed for leveling and alignment of mandibular anterior crowding. Angle Orthod. 2022;92(4): 478–486. pmid:35344012.
  29. 29. Katchooi M, Cohanim B, Tai S, Bayirli B, Spiekerman C, Huang G. Effect of supplemental vibration on orthodontic treatment with aligners: a randomized trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018;153(3): 336–346. pmid:29501108.
  30. 30. Alansari S, Atique MI, Gomez JP, Hamidaddin M, Thirumoorthy SN, Sangsuwon C, et al. The effects of brief daily vibration on clear aligner orthodontic treatment. J World Fed Orthod. 2018;7(4): 134–140.
  31. 31. Feng XD, Liu N, Liu JM. Study on pain relieving of children after orthodontic force applying through vibratory stimulation. Chin J Orthod. 2016;23(4): 209–210.
  32. 32. Deng XC, Zeng CM, Shen Y, Lu J, Liu M, Li S. Effectiveness of vibration method in relieving pain after orthodontic force for children. Chin J Aesthet Med. 2019;28(9): 129–131.
  33. 33. Miles P, Smith H, Weyant R, Rinchuse DJ. The effects of a vibrational appliance on tooth movement and patient discomfort: a prospective randomised clinical trial. Aust Orthod J. 2012;28(2): 213–218. pmid:23304970.
  34. 34. Çelebi F. Mechanical vibration and chewing gum methods in orthodontic pain relief. Turk J Orthod. 2022;35(2): 133–138. pmid:35788438.
  35. 35. Yang Z, Jiang YH, Huang L, Xiao Y, Yuan X, Xu X. Preliminary study of chewing gum on relieving the initial orthodontic pain. J Luzhou Med Coll. 2013;36(3): 248–250.
  36. 36. Celebi F, Bicakci AA, Kelesoglu U. Effectiveness of low-level laser therapy and chewing gum in reducing orthodontic pain: a randomized controlled trial. Korean J Orthod. 2021;51(5): 313–320. pmid:34556585.
  37. 37. Farzanegan F, Zebarjad SM, Alizadeh S, Ahrari F. Pain reduction after initial archwire placement in orthodontic patients: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;141(2): 169–173. pmid:22284284.
  38. 38. Roth PM, Thrash WJ. Effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for controlling pain associated with orthodontic tooth movement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1986;90(2): 132–138. pmid:3488674.
  39. 39. Jia Y, Chen B, Cai SX, Hu T. TEAS for prevention and treatment of orthodontic toothache and oral dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2016;36(5): 485–490. pmid:27509607
  40. 40. Zhao F. Evaluation of acupuncture analgesia in reducing pain in oral orthodontic treatment. Gen J Stomatol. 2018;5(31): 83–84.
  41. 41. Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3): 147–153. pmid:26317388.
  42. 42. Krukemeyer AM, Arruda AO, Inglehart MR. Pain and orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(6): 1175–1181. pmid:19852612.
  43. 43. Kartal Y, Polat-Ozsoy O. Insight into orthodontic appliance induced pain: mechanism, duration and management. World J Anesthesiol. 2016;5(1): 28–35.
  44. 44. Weng HJ, Patel KN, Jeske NA, Bierbower SM, Zou W, Tiwari V, et al. Tmem100 is a regulator of TRPA1-TRPV1 complex and contributes to persistent pain. Neuron. 2015;85(4): 833–846. pmid:25640077.
  45. 45. Spahn V, Stein C, Zöllner C. Modulation of transient receptor vanilloid 1 activity by transient receptor potential ankyrin 1. Mol Pharmacol. 2014;85(2): 335–344. pmid:24275229.
  46. 46. Eroli F, Loonen ICM, van den Maagdenberg AMJM, Tolner EA, Nistri A. Differential neuromodulatory role of endocannabinoids in the rodent trigeminal sensory ganglion and cerebral cortex relevant to pain processing. Neuropharmacology. 2018;131: 39–50. pmid:29225040.
  47. 47. Tan Y, Qiu JY, Wang J. Clinical research progress on pain control during orthodontic tooth movement. Chin J Pain Med. 2013;19(7): 428–431.
  48. 48. Kirschneck C, Meier M, Bauer K, Proff P, Fanghänel J. Meloxicam medication reduces orthodontically induced dental root resorption and tooth movement velocity: a combined in vivo and in vitro study of dental-periodontal cells and tissue. Cell Tissue Res. 2017;368(1): 61–78. pmid:28044198.
  49. 49. Kavaliauskiene A, Smailiene D, Buskiene I, Keriene D. Pain and discomfort perception among patients undergoing orthodontic treatment: results from one month follow-up study. Stomatologija. 2012;14(4): 118–125. pmid:23455981.
  50. 50. Bildt FA, Reinfeldt C, Palme SA. A comparative study of the effect of treatment for labor pain with changes in VAS scores. Afr J Nurs Midwif. 2015;2(7): 461–464.
  51. 51. Erdinç AM, Dinçer B. Perception of pain during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26(1): 79–85. pmid:14994886.
  52. 52. Gao M, Yan X, Zhao R, Shan Y, Chen Y, Jian F, et al. Comparison of pain perception, anxiety, and impacts on oral health-related quality of life between patients receiving clear aligners and fixed appliances during the initial stage of orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 2021;43(3): 353–359. pmid:32613250.
  53. 53. Thammanichanon P, Kaewpitak A, Binlateh T, Leethanakul C. Interval vibration reduces orthodontic pain via a mechanism involving down-regulation of TRPV1 and CGRP. In Vivo. 2020;34(5): 2389–2399. pmid:32871764.
  54. 54. Yan X, Han H, Zhang S, Lu Y, Ren L, Tang Y, et al. N/OFQ modulates orofacial pain induced by tooth movement through CGRP-dependent pathways. BMC Neurosci. 2021;22(1): 25. pmid:33836649.
  55. 55. Keerthana P, Diddige R, Chitra P. Performance comparison of vibration devices on orthodontic tooth movement—A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2020;10(4): 814–823. pmid:33224725.
  56. 56. Alikhani M, Alikhani M, Alansari S, Almansour A, Hamidaddin MA, Khoo E, et al. Therapeutic effect of localized vibration on alveolar bone of osteoporotic rats. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(1): e0211004. pmid:30695073.
  57. 57. Al-Dboush R, Flores-Mir C, El-Bialy T. Impact of intraoral non-pharmacological non-surgical adjunctive interventions on orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption in humans: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021;24(4): 459–479. pmid:33567160.
  58. 58. Judex S, Pongkitwitoon S. Differential efficacy of 2 vibrating orthodontic devices to alter the cellular response in osteoblasts, fibroblasts, and osteoclasts. Dose-Response. 2018;16(3): 1–8. pmid:30397398.
  59. 59. Ebrahimi P, Hadilou M, Naserneysari F, Dolatabadi A, Tarzemany R, Vahed N, et al. Effect of photobiomodulation in secondary intention gingival wound healing-a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1): 1–16. pmid:33985492.
  60. 60. Zheng J, Yang K. Clinical research: low-level laser therapy in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1): 324. pmid:34182967.
  61. 61. Domínguez Camacho A, Montoya Guzmán D, Velásquez Cujar SA. Effective wavelength range in photobiomodulation for tooth movement acceleration in orthodontics: a systematic review. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg. 2020;38(10): 581–590. pmid:32609566.
  62. 62. Bjordal JM, Johnson MI, Iversen V, Aimbire F, Lopes-Martins RA. Low-level laser therapy in acute pain: a systematic review of possible mechanisms of action and clinical effects in randomized placebo-controlled trials. Photomed Laser Surg. 2006;24(2): 158–168. pmid:16706694.
  63. 63. Chow RT, David MA, Armati PJ. 830 nm laser irradiation induces varicosity formation, reduces mitochondrial membrane potential and blocks fast axonal flow in small and medium diameter rat dorsal root ganglion neurons: implications for the analgesic effects of 830 nm laser. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2007;12(1): 28–39. pmid:17374099.
  64. 64. Dhobley A, Thombre AS, Sharma A, Deoghare A, Billaiya P, Dhopte A. Healing with low level laser therapy: a review. Ann Rom Soc Cell Biol. 2021;25(4): 3918–3921.
  65. 65. Shimizu N, Yamaguchi M, Goseki T, Shibata Y, Takiguchi H, Iwasawa T, et al. Inhibition of prostaglandin E2 and interleukin 1-beta production by low-power laser irradiation in stretched human periodontal ligament cells. J Dent Res. 1995;74(7): 1382–1388. pmid:7560389.
  66. 66. Al-Jewair T, Farsaii A. Low-level laser therapy may reduce pain associated with orthodontic separator placement. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2022;22(3): 101752. pmid:36162900.
  67. 67. Kai-feng D, Ri-lan C, Zi-long L, Guo-xiang W, Ying Z. Overview of reported transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation effects on pain mediators. J Acupunct Tuina Sci. 2021;19(1): 78–82.
  68. 68. Kawakita K, Shinbara H, Imai K, Fukuda F, Yano T, Kuriyama K. How do acupuncture and moxibustion act?–Focusing on the progress in Japanese acupuncture research-. J Pharmacol Sci. 2006;100(5): 443–459. pmid:16799260.
  69. 69. Wright A. Exploring the evidence for using TENS to relieve pain. Nurs Times. 2012;108(11): 20–23. pmid:22536714.
  70. 70. Johnson M. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation: review of effectiveness. Nurs Stand. 2014;28(40): 44–53. pmid:24894255.
  71. 71. Waller-Wise R. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation: an overview. J Perinat Educ. 2022;31(1): 49–57. pmid:35165504
  72. 72. Santos DJDS Jr, J C Jr. Chewing gum as a non-pharmacological alternative for orthodontic pain relief: A randomized clinical trial using an intention-to-treat analysis. Korean J Orthod. 2021;51(5): 346–354. pmid:34556589
  73. 73. Alqareer A, Alyahya A, Al-Anezi SA, AlAwadhi A, Al Qabandi S, Alyaseen M. Efficacy of chewing gum to reduce orthodontic pain compared to placebo: a blinded, parallel-group, preliminary clinical trial. J Oral Facial Pain Headache. 2019;33(3): 301–307. pmid:30978268.