4.7 Article

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Orthodontic Pain Control: A Randomized Trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH
Volume 91, Issue 6, Pages 580-585

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0022034512444446

Keywords

oral pain; analgesics; randomized controlled trial; ibuprofen; visual analog scale; orthodontic treatment

Funding

  1. Department of Orthodontics, West China Stomatology Hospital
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30801304, 81071273, 31170929]
  3. Science & Technology Department of Sichuan Province [2010SZ0116]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy intervention for patients who experienced pain during orthodontic treatment. The baseline characteristics were assessed via questionnaires and oral examinations. Four hundred and fifty eligible individuals were recruited and randomized by computer-generated block randomization into three groups: cognitive behavioral therapy intervention (n = 150), ibuprofen intervention (n = 150), and no intervention (control; n = 150). Primary outcomes were the change from baseline in pain intensity measured with 100-mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores at 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, and 30 days after initial archwire placement. Outcomes assessment was blinded and followed the intention-to-treat principle. One hundred forty-three (95.30%), 145 (96.70%), and 141 (94.00%) individuals in the cognitive behavioral therapy, the ibuprofen, and the control groups, respectively, completed the one-month follow-up evaluations. Those in the cognitive behavioral therapy group showed a greater decrease in mean VAS scores than did those in the control group over the previous five time-points (p < 0.001). Cognitive behavioral therapy was shown to be effective in pain control during the initial stage of orthodontic treatment. The study registration number was ChiCTR-TRC-00000556.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available