Context and Policy Issues
Malocclusion refers to an improper alignment of the upper and lower teeth.1 Data from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey suggested that the prevalence of malocclusion and past orthodontic treatment among Canadian adults aged 20 to 59 years was 25% and 20%, respectively.2 According to the 2009 to 2010 First Nations Oral Health Survey, the prevalence of malocclusion among First Nations aged 12 years and over was 30.3%, and 98.6% among them received no orthodontic treatment.3 The most common types of malocclusion in this population were severe crowding (14.9%), anterior cross bite (9.6%), and posterior cross bite (6.9%).3
There are several causes for malocclusion, including hereditary, tooth overcrowding, lost teeth, abnormal bite patterns, ill-fitting dental fillings, cleft lip and palate, tumor of mouth and jaw, and impacted teeth.4 Common conditions of malocclusion are upper protrusion (i.e., over jet), spacing or crowding problems, misplaced midline, open bite, overbite, cross bite, underbite, rotation and transposition.5 There are three major classes of malocclusion: Class 1 (i.e., upper teeth overlap the lower teeth, most common); Class 2 (i.e., severe overbite); Class 3 (i.e., severe underbite).1 Malocclusion can cause severe pain upon biting or chewing because a sudden unbalanced pressure that puts too much strain on a tooth may cause inflammation in the pulp chamber.6
Severe malocclusion requires orthodontic treatment or combination of surgery and orthodontic (i.e., orthognathic) to correct the position of the teeth, and to eliminate the strain on the teeth, jaws and muscles in order to improve oral health-related quality of life, self-esteem and psychological health.7,8 It remains unclear if pain and the impacted teeth associated with malocclusion can be effectively managed by orthodontic treatment.
The aim of this report is to review the clinical effectiveness and evidence-based guidelines on the use of orthodontic treatment for the management of pain or impacted teeth in patients with malocclusion.
Research Questions
What is the clinical effectiveness of orthodontic treatment for the management of pain in patients with malocclusion?
What is the clinical effectiveness of orthodontic treatment for impacted teeth associated with malocclusion?
What are the evidence-based guidelines regarding the use of orthodontic treatments for the management of pain or impacted teeth in patients with malocclusion?
Key Findings
The evidence suggested that orthodontic or orthodontic-surgical treatment of severe malocclusion in adolescents and adults significantly improved all seven domains of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14), including physical pain and physical disability. Decreased facial pain was associated with the improvement of OHIP-14 severity. Given the methodological limitations of the identified studies, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Literature on the clinical effectiveness of orthodontic treatment for impacted teeth associated with malocclusion or evidence-based guidelines were not identified.
Methods
Literature Search Methods
A limited literature search was conducted on key resources including PubMed, The Cochrane Library (2017, Issue 5), University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) databases, Canadian and major international health technology agencies, as well as a focused Internet search. No filters were applied to limit the retrieval by study type. Where possible, retrieval was limited to the human population. The search was also limited to English language documents published between January 1, 2012 and May 13, 2017. Internet links were provided, where available.
Selection Criteria and Methods
One reviewer screened citations and selected studies. In the first level of screening, titles and abstracts were reviewed and potentially relevant articles were retrieved and assessed for inclusion. The final selection of full-text articles was based on the inclusion criteria presented in .
Exclusion Criteria
Studies were excluded if they did not satisfy the selection criteria in , and if they were published prior to 2012. Conference abstracts or duplicates of publication of the same study were excluded.
Critical Appraisal of Individual Studies
The Downs and Black checklist was used to assess the quality of non-randomized controlled studies.9
Summary of Evidence
Quantity of Research Available
A total of 221 citations were identified in the literature search. Following screening of titles and abstracts, 213 citations were excluded and eight potentially relevant reports from the electronic search were retrieved for full-text review. No potentially relevant publications were retrieved from the grey literature search. Of these potentially relevant articles, three publications were excluded for various reasons, while five studies with a before-and-after study design met the inclusion criteria and were included in this report. Appendix 1 describes the PRISMA flowchart of the study selection.
Summary of Study Characteristics
The characteristics of the included studies10–14 are summarized below and presented in Appendix 2.
Study Design
All included studies were of before-and-after design, and they each enrolled patients from a single centre.10–14
Country of Origin
Two studies were conducted in Finland,10,14 one was from New Zealand11 and two were from China.12,13
Population
Patient population included adolescent and adult patients with a mean age ranging from 14.511 to 37.510 years and sample size ranging from 3011 to 81.13 All studies included standard patients with severe malocclusions, except one study also included patients with severe skeletal discrepancies or with cleft lip/palate as reasons for malocclusion.11 One study included patients who had little or no need, borderline need, and actual need for orthodontic treatment.12 Data of patients, who required orthodontic treatment, therefore, were presented in the findings.12
Interventions and Comparators
The interventions were the conventional orthodontic or orthodontic-surgical treatment, and the outcomes were assessed before and after treatment.
Outcomes
In all studies, the clinical outcome was the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) as measured by the short form of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14). OHIP-14 has seven conceptualized domains, such as functional limitation, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability, and handicap. One study also include the intensity of facial pain measured by visual analog scale (VAS).10 Other outcomes, such as severity of temporal mandibular disorders,10 esthetic satisfaction,14 and Aesthetic Component of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need14 were measure but were out of scope for this report.
Treatment Duration
Three studies10,11,14 reported treatment duration, ranging from 2 to 3 years.
Analysis
In all studies, the analyses of study endpoints were performed on a per protocol basis, where adequate pre- and post-treatment data (i.e., questionnaires and clinical examinations) were included. One study12 presented a sample size calculation to obtain sufficient power for the primary outcome.
Summary of Critical Appraisal
The summary of the quality assessment for the included studies are briefly described below, and presented in Appendix 3.
Reporting
All studies were explicit in reporting the objective, description of main outcomes and findings, and the probability values. None of the studies provided a detailed description of the patient characteristics, the interventions of interest, the main confounders in each group of patients, adverse events, and the characteristics of patients lost to follow-up. Three studies10,12,14 did not provide the estimates of the random variability of the data for the main outcomes (i.e., confidence intervals or standard deviations).
External validity
Across all studies, it was unclear if the study participants were representative of the entire population from which they were recruited. Further, the staff, places and facilities, where the patients were treated, seemed to be representative of the treatment the majority patients received.
Internal validity
All the studies used appropriate statistical tests to assess the main outcomes. The outcome measures used in all studies were validated and reliable. However, since the included studies were of before-and-after study design with no control group, many items of the internal validity relevant to a randomized controlled trial, cohort study and case control study were not applicable. Thus, there might be a risk of selection, performance, attrition, detection or reporting bias.
Power
All studies, except one,12 did not report the power calculation for the primary outcome, and it, therefore, was unclear if those studies10,11,13,14 had sufficient power to detect a clinically important effect where the probability value for a difference being due to chance in less than 5 percent.
Summary of Findings
The main findings and conclusions of the included studies are presented in Appendix 4.
Question 1. What is the clinical effectiveness of orthodontic treatment for the management of pain in patients with malocclusion?
Oral Health-Related Quality of Life Measured with OHIP-14
Orthodontic or orthodontic-surgical treatment of severe malocclusion was associated with significant improvement in the overall OHIP-14 severity scores in all studies.10–14 The scores of all seven domains of OHIP-14, including physical pain, also significantly improved after treatment. Significant improvement in physical pain was observed in all three groups of patients with Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 malocclusion after comprehensive orthodontic treatment.13 In one study,11 the greatest improvement in OHIP-14 severity scores occurred in patients with severe skeletal discrepancies followed by patients with severe malocclusion, while patients with a cleft lip or palate experienced the least improvement.
Oral Health-Related Quality of Life Measured with the Intensity of Facial Pain
The intensity of facial pain assessed by VAS was significantly improved after orthodontic or orthodontic-surgical treatment in patients with severe malocclusion.10 The decrease in VAS was significantly associated with improvement in OHIP-14 severity, particularly with improvement in physical pain, physical disability and social disability.10
Adverse Events
None of the studies reported adverse events associated with orthodontic treatment.
Question 2. What is the clinical effectiveness of orthodontic treatment for impacted teeth associated with malocclusion?
No relevant literature was identified.
Question 3. What are the evidence-based guidelines regarding the use of orthodontic treatments for the management of pain or impacted teeth in patients with malocclusion?
No relevant literature was identified.
Limitations
All the included studies were of before-and-after study design with no treatment control group. The treatment effect, therefore, may be overestimated by the lack of a control group. Due to the strong desire of patients with severe malocclusion to undergo orthodontic treatment, their behavior may change in compliance with the treatment, leading to significant improvement in outcomes (i.e., Hawthorne effect). The sample population in the included studies had relatively high OHIP-14 baseline scores, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with more severe malocclusion. Evidence on First the Nations population was not found. Further, literature on the clinical effectiveness of orthodontic treatment for impacted teeth associated with malocclusion, and evidence-based guidelines were not identified.
Conclusions and Implications for Decision or Policy Making
The evidence from pre-post studies suggested that orthodontic or orthodontic-surgical treatment of severe malocclusion improved OHRQoL measured with OHIP-14 in adolescents and adults. All seven domains of OHIP-14, including physical pain and physical disability, were significantly improved after treatment. Facial pain also decreased and was associated with the improvement of OHIP-14 severity. Given the aforementioned limitations of the evidence, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Multi-centre controlled trials of high quality with population of broader categories of malocclusion severity and larger sample sizes are needed. Qualitative and quantitative studies are also needed to investigate the effect of orthodontic treatment for impacted teeth associated with malocclusion.
References
- 1.
- 2.
Ravaghi
V, Kavand
G, Farrahi
N. Malocclusion, past orthodontic treatment, and satisfaction with dental appearance among Canadian adults. J Can Dent Assoc. 2015;81:f13. [
PubMed: 26352521]
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
Arrow
P, Brennan
DS, Spencer
J. Social acceptability of dental appearance and benefits of fixed orthodontic treatment: a 17-year observational cohort study. J Public Health Dent. 2012;72(2):135–42. [
PubMed: 22315996]
- 8.
Arrow
P, Brennan
D, Spencer
AJ. Quality of life and psychosocial outcomes after fixed orthodontic treatment: a 17-year observational cohort study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2011
Dec;39(6):505–14. [
PubMed: 21595738]
- 9.
- 10.
Silvola
AS, Tolvanen
M, Rusanen
J, Sipila
K, Lahti
S, Pirttiniemi
P. Do changes in oral health-related quality-of-life, facial pain and temporomandibular disorders correlate after treatment of severe malocclusion?
Acta Odontol Scand. 2016;74(1):44–50. [
PubMed: 25936383]
- 11.
Antoun
JS, Fowler
PV, Jack
HC, Farella
M. Oral health-related quality of life changes in standard, cleft, and surgery patients after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015
Oct;148(4):568–75. [
PubMed: 26432312]
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
Silvola
AS, Varimo
M, Tolvanen
M, Rusanen
J, Lahti
S, Pirttiniemi
P. Dental esthetics and quality of life in adults with severe malocclusion before and after treatment. Angle Orthod. 2014
Jul;84(4):594–9. [
PMC free article: PMC8650440] [
PubMed: 24308529]
Appendix 1. Selection of Included Studies
Appendix 2. Characteristics of Included Studies
Table A1Characteristics of Included Primary Studies
View in own window
| First Author, Publication Year, Country, Study Name (if reported), Funding | Study Design and Analysis | Patient Characteristics | Interventions | Comparators | Clinical Outcomes |
|---|
Silvola et al., 201610
Finland
Source of funding: Planmeca group and the Finnish Doctoral Program in Oral Sciences (FINDOS) | Before-and-after, single center
Recruitment period: 2001 to 2004
Analysis: Only patients with adequate pre and posttreatment data
Sample size calculation: NR
Treatment duration: average 3 years | Adult patients (n=64) with severe malocclusion
- –
Mean age: 37.5 years (range = 18 to 64 years) - –
Gender: 46 females, 18 males - –
Orthognathic (n=44) - –
Orthodontic (n=20) - –
Malocclusion types: Extreme overjet/retro gnathic mandible (n=12), anterior open bite (n=12), traumatic deep bite (n=16), anterior cross bite (n=10), unilater crossbite/Severe asymmetry (n=12), oligodontia (n=2)
| Conventional orthodontic treatment
Combined orthodontic and surgical treatment (orthognathic) | Before treatment | OHRQoL measured with
- –
OHIP-14 - –
Intensity of facial pain (VAS) - –
Severity of TMD (Helkimo's anamnestic [Ai] and clinical [Di] dysfunction indices)
OHIP has seven conceptualized domains: functional limitation, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability, and handicap |
Antoun et al., 201511
New Zealand
Source of funding: NR | Before-and-after, single center
Recruitment period: 2005 to 2007
Analysis: pre and post-treatment data
Sample size calculation: NR
Treatment duration: before and after treatment (22 to 34 months) | Patients with severe malocclusions (n=30)
- –
Mean age: 14.5 years - –
Gender: 13 females, 17 males - –
Mean DAI: 45.5
Patients with cleft lip/palate (n=24)
- –
Mean age: 12.6 years - –
Gender: 10 females, 14 males - –
Mean DAI: 45.4
Patients with cranial facial deformities required surgery and orthodontic treatment (n=29)
- –
Mean age: 19.0 years - –
Gender: 14 females, 15 males - –
Mean DAI: 56.6
| Conventional orthodontic treatment
Combined orthodontic and surgical treatment (orthognathic) | Before treatment | OHRQoL measured with OHIP-14 (before and after treatment within a 3-month window) |
Chen et al., 201512
China
Source of funding: National Natural Science Foundation of China, Health and Family Commission of Shenzhen Municipality and Science and Technology Innovation Commission of Nanshan Municipality | Before-and-after, single center
Recruitment period: NR
Analysis: pre and post-treatment data
Sample size calculation: Yes
Treatment duration: NR | Adult patients (n=190) with malocclusion with little or no treatment need (n=41), borderline (96), and actual need for orthodontic treatment (n=53)
- –
Mean age: 20.8 years - –
Gender: 109 females, 81 males
| Orthodontic treatment | Before treatment | OHRQoL measured with OHIP-14 (Chinese version) |
Zheng et al., 201513
China
Source of funding: National Natural Science Foundation of China | Before-and-after, single center
Recruitment period: NR
Analysis: pre and post-treatment data
Sample size calculation: NR
Treatment duration: NR | 81 patients underwent orthodontic treatment
- –
Age: 15 to 24 years - –
Gender: 41 females and 40 males - –
Divided into three groups based on the type of Angle classification: Class I (n=35), Class II (n=32), and Class III (n=14)
| Orthodontic treatment | Before treatment | OHRQoL measured with OHIP-14 (Chinese version) |
Silvola et al., 201414
China
Finland
Source of funding: Planmeca group and the Finnish Doctoral Program in Oral Sciences (FINDOS) | Before-and-after, single center
Recruitment period: 2002 to 2006
Analysis: Only patients with adequate pre and post-treatment data
Sample size calculation: NR
Treatment duration: average 2 years
Follow-up period: average 5 years | Adult patients (n=52) with severe malocclusion
- –
Mean age: 37.4 years (range = 18 to 61 years) - –
Gender: 36 females, 16 males - –
Orthognathic (n=38) - –
Orthodontic (n=14)
| Conventional orthodontic treatment
Combined orthodontic and surgical treatment (orthognathic) | Before treatment |
- –
OHRQoL measured with OHIP-14 - –
Esthetic satisfaction (100-mm VAS) - –
Aesthetic Component (AC) of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need rated by laypersons, dental students and orthodontics - –
Questionnaires given before and on average 3.1 years after treatment
|
NR = not reported; OHIP-14 = Short Form of The Oral Health Impact Profile; OHRQoL = oral health-related quality-of-life; TMD = temporal mandibular disorders; VAS = visual analog scale
Appendix 3. Quality Assessment of Included Studies
Table A2Quality Assessment of Primary Studies
View in own window
| Downs and Black Checklist9 | Silvola et al., 201610 | Antoun et al., 201511 | Chen et al., 201512 | Zheng et al., 201513 | Silvola et al., 201414 |
|---|
| Reporting | | | | | |
|---|
| 1. Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2. Are the main outcomes to be measured clearly described in the Introduction or Methods section? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3. Are the characteristics of the patients included in the study clearly described in the Introduction or Methods section? | No | No | No | No | No |
| 4. Are the interventions of interest clearly described in the Introduction or Methods section? | No | No | No | No | No |
| 5. Are the distributions of principal confounders in each group of subjects to be compared clearly described? | No | No | No | No | No |
| 6. Are the main findings of the study clearly described? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 7. Does the study provide estimates of the random variability in the data for the main outcomes? | No | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| 8. Have all important adverse events that may be a consequence of the intervention been reported? | No | No | No | No | No |
| 9. Have the characteristics of the patients lost to follow-up been described? | No | No | No | No | No |
| 10. Have 95% CIs and/or actual probability values been reported (e.g. 0.035 rather than <0.05) for the main outcomes except where the probability value is less than 0.001? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| External validity | | | | | |
|---|
| 11. Were the subjects asked to participate in the study representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? | UTD | UTD | UTD | UTD | UTD |
| 12. Were those subjects who were prepared to participate representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? | UTD | UTD | UTD | UTD | UTD |
| 13. Were the staff, places, and facilities where the patients were treated, representative of the treatment the majority patients received? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Internal validity - bias | | | | | |
|---|
| 14. Was an attempt made to blind study subjects to the intervention they have received? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 15. Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 16. If any of the results of the study were based on “data dredging”, was this made clear? | No | No | No | No | No |
| 17. In trials and cohort studies, do the analyses adjust for different lengths of the follow-up of patients, or in case-control studies, is the time period between the intervention and outcome the same for cases and controls? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 18. Were the statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes appropriate? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 19. Was compliance with the interventions reliable? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 20. Were the main outcome measures used accurate (valid and reliable)? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Internal validity - confounding (selection bias) | | | | | |
|---|
| 21. Were the patients in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case-control studies) recruited from the same population? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 22. Were study subjects in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case-control studies) recruited over the same period of time? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 23. Were the subjects randomized to the intervention groups? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 24. Was the randomized intervention assignment concealed from both patients and health care staff until recruitment was complete and irrevocable? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 25. Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in the analyses from which the main findings were drawn? | UTD | UTD | UTD | UTD | UTD |
| 26. Were losses to patients to follow-up take into account? | No | No | No | No | No |
| Power | | | | | |
|---|
| 27. Was a power calculation reported for the primary outcome? | No | No | Yes | No | No |
| 28. Did the study have sufficient power to detect a clinically important effect where the probability value for a difference being due to chance in less than 5 percent? | UTD | UTD | Yes | UTD | UTD |
NA = not applicable; UTD = unable to determine
Appendix 4. Main Study Findings and Author’s Conclusions
Table A3Summary of Findings of Included Primary Studies
View in own window
| Main Study Findings | Author’s Conclusions |
|---|
| Silvola et al., 201610 |
|---|
| Mean facial pain (VAS) | “Treatment of severe malocclusion seemed to improve OHRQoL via decreased facial pain. Decreased facial pain was associated especially with improved OHRQoL dimensions of physical pain, physical disability and social disability.” (p44)10 |
|---|
| All patients | Orthognatic | Orthodontic | |
|---|
| Before | 3.1 | 3.2 | 2.9 | |
| After | 0.9 | 0.6 | 1.5 | |
| Change | −2.2* | −2.6* | −1.4* | |
| OHIP-14 and correlations between changes in dimensions and change in facial pain intensity (VAS) |
|---|
| Functional limitation | Physical pain | Psychological discomfort | Physical disability | Psychological disability | Social disability | Handicap | |
|---|
| Before | 1.8 | 4.3 | 3.9 | 1.6 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 1.8 | |
| After | 0.7 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | |
| Change | −1.1* | −2.5* | −3.0* | −1.4* | −2.4* | −1.7* | −1.5* | |
| Facial pain (VAS)r | 0.165 | 0.253† | 0.239 | 0.263† | 0.210 | 0.281† | 0.185 | |
| p | 0.207 | 0.044 | 0.059 | 0.037 | 0.102 | 0.027 | 0.147 | |
| Antoun et al., 201511 |
|---|
| OHIP-14 of standard patients with severe malocclusions | “The effect of orthodontic treatment in OHRQoL varies for different patient groups even after adjusting for age and sex. The greatest improvement in OHRQoL occurred in adults with a need for orthognatic surgery, whereas the least improvement seemed to occur in adolescents with cleft lip, cleft palate, or cleft lip and palate.” (p568)11 |
|---|
| Overall | Functional limitation | Physical pain | Psychological discomfort | Physical disability | Psychological disability | Social disability | Handicap |
|---|
| Before | 11.60 | 1.23 | 1.50 | 3.00 | 0.73 | 2.67 | 1.27 | 1.20 |
| After | 3.63 | 0.77 | 0.67 | 0.70 | 0.23 | 0.67 | 0.37 | 0.23 |
| Change | 7.97† | 0.47 | 0.83* | 2.30† | 0.50 | 2.00† | 0.90 | 0.97* |
| Effect sizea | +1.11 | +0.47 | +0.58 | +1.21 | +0.46 | +1.15 | +0.63 | +0.90 |
| OHIP-14 of cleft lip/palate patients with cranial facial deformities |
|---|
| Overall | Functional limitation | Physical pain | Psychological discomfort | Physical disability | Psychological disability | Social disability | Handicap |
|---|
| Before | 10.50 | 1.75 | 1.25 | 2.54 | 0.75 | 1.92 | 1.17 | 1.1 |
| After | 7.25 | 1.37 | 1.29 | 1.75 | 0.33 | 1.33 | 0.58 | 0.58 |
| Change | 3.25 | 0.38 | −0.04 | 0.79 | 0.42 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.54 |
| Effect sizea | +0.52 | +0.37 | −0.03 | +0.62 | +0.44 | +0.43 | +0.63 | +0.51 |
| OHIP-14 of surgery patients with severe skeletal discrepancies |
|---|
| Overall | Functional limitation | Physical pain | Psychological discomfort | Physical disability | Psychological disability | Social disability | Handicap |
|---|
| Before | 19.52 | 2.03 | 3.10 | 4.83 | 1.59 | 3.93 | 2.00 | 2.03 |
| After | 2.03 | 0.24 | 0.86 | 0.48 | 0.10 | 0.24 | 0.03 | 0.07 |
| Change | 17.48† | 1.79† | 2.24† | 4.35† | 1.48† | 3.69† | 1.97† | 1.97† |
| Effect sizea | +2.59 | +1.36 | +1.25 | +2.73 | +1.58 | +2.65 | +1.72 | +2.01 |
| Chen et al., 201512 |
|---|
| OHIP-14 of patients with severe malocclusions required orthodontic treatment | “Malocclusion has a significant negative impact on OHRQoL and its domains. The greatest impact was seen in the psychological discomfort and psychological disability domains.” (p990)12 |
|---|
| Overall | Functional limitation | Physical pain | Psychological discomfort | Physical disability | Psychological disability | Social disability | Handicap |
|---|
| Before | 12.75 | 1.85 | 1.64 | 3.51 | 1.13 | 2.21 | 1.25 | 1.17 |
| After | 3.70 | 0.43 | 0.25 | 1.34 | 0.45 | 0.66 | 0.36 | 0.29 |
| Change | −9.05* | −1.42* | −1.39* | −2.17* | −0.68* | −1.55* | −0.89* | −0.88* |
| Zheng et al., 201513 |
|---|
| OHIP-14 of patients with class I malocclusions | “For the overall OHIP-14 score, class I, II and III showed significant decrease (P<0.001) during the study period. Significant reduction (P<0.001) were also observed in all seven OHIP-14 domains of three groups except for social disability in class I and class II, handicap in class II and class III (P>0.05).” (p3)13 |
|---|
| Overall | Functional limitation | Physical pain | Psychological discomfort | Physical disability | Psychological disability | Social disability | Handicap |
|---|
| Before | 15.32 | 1.77 | 1.60 | 3.94 | 2.57 | 4.26 | 0.63 | 1.14 |
| After | 3.23 | 0.54 | 0.57 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.49 | 0.34 | 0.46 |
| Change | −12.2* | −1.23* | −1.03* | −3.31* | −1.94* | −3.77* | −0.29 | −0.68* |
| OHIP-14 of patients with class II malocclusions |
|---|
| Overall | Functional limitation | Physical pain | Psychological discomfort | Physical disability | Psychological disability | Social disability | Handicap |
|---|
| Before | 16.42 | 1.75 | 2.09 | 3.56 | 3.56 | 3.13 | 0.66 | 0.61 |
| After | 3.12 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.53 | 0.56 | 0.66 | 0.31 | 0.54 |
| Change | −13.3* | −1.25* | −1.59* | −3.03* | −3.00* | −2.47* | −0.35 | −0.07 |
| OHIP-14 of patients with class III malocclusions |
|---|
| Overall | Functional limitation | Physical pain | Psychological discomfort | Physical disability | Psychological disability | Social disability | Handicap |
|---|
| Before | 17.11 | 1.57 | 1.43 | 3.93 | 4.14 | 4.50 | 0.93 | 0.48 |
| After | 2.98 | 0.50 | 0.57 | 0.71 | 0.36 | 0.43 | 0.57 | 0.32 |
| Change | −14.1* | −1.07* | −0.86* | −3.22* | −3.78* | −4.07* | −0.36* | −0.16 |
| Silvola et al., 201414 |
|---|
| OHIP-14 of patients with severe malocclusions | “Improvement in esthetic satisfaction due to the treatment of severe malocclusion improves oral health-related quality of life, particularly by decreasing psychological discomfort and psychological disability.” (p594)14 |
|---|
| All patients | Overall | Functional limitation | Physical pain | Psychological discomfort | Physical disability | Psychological disability | Social disability | Handicap |
|---|
| Before | 18.4 | 1.9 | 4.6 | 3.8 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 2.0 | 1.7 |
| After | 4.7 | 0.8 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Change | −13.7* | −1.1* | −2.8* | −2.8* | −1.5* | −2.2* | −1.7* | −1.4* |
|
| All patients | Esthetic satisfaction | AC rated by laypersons | AC rated by dental students | AC rated by orthodontists |
|---|
| Before | 64.3 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 6.0 |
| After | 18.9 | 3.2 | 2.7 | 2.3 |
| Change | −45.4* | −2.4* | −3.1* | −3.7* |
- *
Significant difference, p<0.05
- r
Spearman correlation coefficient for association between changes in OHIP dimensions and facial pain (VAS),
- †
Significant difference p<0.05
- †
Significant difference p<0.01
- a
Effect sizes: <0.2: minimal; 0.2 to 0.49: small; 0.5 to 0.8: moderate; >0.8: large
- *
Significant difference, p<0.001
AC = Aesthetic component; OHIP-14 = Short Form of The Oral Health Impact Profile; OHRQoL = oral health-related quality-of-life; TMD = temporal mandibular disorders; VAS = visual analog scale
About the Series
CADTH Rapid Response Report: Summary With Critical Appraisal
Funding: CADTH receives funding from Canada’s federal, provincial, and territorial governments, with the exception of Quebec.
Suggested citation:
Orthodontic Treatment for the Management of Pain or Impacted Teeth in Patients with Malocclusion: A Review of Clinical Effectiveness and Guidelines. Ottawa: CADTH; 2017 June. (CADTH rapid response report: summary with critical appraisal).
Disclaimer: The information in this document is intended to help Canadian health care decision-makers, health care professionals, health systems leaders, and policy-makers make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. While patients and others may access this document, the document is made available for informational purposes only and no representations or warranties are made with respect to its fitness for any particular purpose. The information in this document should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice or as a substitute for the application of clinical judgment in respect of the care of a particular patient or other professional judgment in any decision-making process. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) does not endorse any information, drugs, therapies, treatments, products, processes, or services.
While care has been taken to ensure that the information prepared by CADTH in this document is accurate, complete, and up-to-date as at the applicable date the material was first published by CADTH, CADTH does not make any guarantees to that effect. CADTH does not guarantee and is not responsible for the quality, currency, propriety, accuracy, or reasonableness of any statements, information, or conclusions contained in any third-party materials used in preparing this document. The views and opinions of third parties published in this document do not necessarily state or reflect those of CADTH.
CADTH is not responsible for any errors, omissions, injury, loss, or damage arising from or relating to the use (or misuse) of any information, statements, or conclusions contained in or implied by the contents of this document or any of the source materials.
This document may contain links to third-party websites. CADTH does not have control over the content of such sites. Use of third-party sites is governed by the third-party website owners’ own terms and conditions set out for such sites. CADTH does not make any guarantee with respect to any information contained on such third-party sites and CADTH is not responsible for any injury, loss, or damage suffered as a result of using such third-party sites. CADTH has no responsibility for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by third-party sites.
Subject to the aforementioned limitations, the views expressed herein are those of CADTH and do not necessarily represent the views of Canada’s federal, provincial, or territorial governments or any third party supplier of information.
This document is prepared and intended for use in the context of the Canadian health care system. The use of this document ou tside of Canada is done so at the user’s own risk.
This disclaimer and any questions or matters of any nature arising from or relating to the content or use (or misuse) of this document will be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada applicable therein, and all proceedings shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Ontario, Canada.
