Effect of menthol on pain perception after placing brass wire separators: A split-mouth randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Pain caused by the orthodontic separators is one of the most common complaints among orthodontic patients. Pain management can increase patients’ comfort and quality of life during orthodontic treatment. The present study aimed to assess the effect of local menthol patches on pain caused by brass wire separators.Methods We performed a split-mouth clinical trial from May 2018 to January 2019 (IRCT2016080129155N1). The study population comprised thirty-two 14- to 25-year-old healthy patients with intact dentition in mandible, without a history of chronic pain or regular consumption of analgesics. After placing brass wire separators on both mandibular first molars, we gave each patient two series of patches – containing menthol and placebo – to use on the right and left sides. Researchers as well as patients were unaware of each patch’s contents as they were identified by randomly assigned numbers. The main outcome, patients’ pain perception, was evaluated by Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 0, 2, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 72 hours after placing separators. Data were analysed by the paired T-test. Significance was considered as 0.05.Results Thirty-two patients completed the study. Data analysis suggests that patients’ pain perception significantly (P-value <0.05) lowered on the menthol side at 2 (mean difference: 1.18 ± 1.31), 6 (mean difference: 0.91 ± 1.06) and 12 (mean difference: 0.5 ± 1.37) hours after placing separators. None of the patients experienced pain at 72 hours.Conclusion Menthol patch could significantly reduce pain perception in patients who receive brass wire separators prior to orthodontic bonding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".