Perception of Pain Intensity and Quality in Patients Treated with Conventional Fixed Orthodontic Appliances Versus Clear Removable Aligners: A Pilot Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The main objective of this study was to compare the perception of pain intensity between patients treated with fixed orthodontic appliances and those treated with clear removable aligners. The secondary objective was to investigate the pattern and quantities of analgesics use immediately after orthodontic adjustment visits and correlate this with the intensity and quality of the perceived pain. Methods Two hundred participants, 100 treated with fixed orthodontic appliances (G1) and 100 with clear removable aligners (G2), filled the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), the Numeric Pain Rating scale (NPRS), and the Present Pain Index (PPI) at baseline (before orthodontic adjustment or changing to a new aligner) and 24-hours post-adjustment visit. Results The mean change in the NPRS values from baseline to 24-hour post-adjustment showed significantly higher pain intensity in G1 (3.15±2.47) compared to G2 (1.58±1.74) (p<0.0001). There was also a statistically significant difference in the frequency of reporting of SF-MPQ pain descriptors between G1 and G2, with more pain associated with G1. The PPI 24-hours post-adjustment showed that 94% of G1 reported some form of pain compared to only 79% in G2. At the 24-hour post-adjustment visit, 34 participants in G1 and only 8 participants in G2 reported the use of analgesic medications (p<0.0001). Conclusion Overall, patients treated with fixed orthodontic appliances reported higher pain perception compared to patients treated with clear removable aligners during the first 24 hours following the adjustment visit.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it