The Use of Tranexamic Acid to Reduce the Need for Nasal Packing in Epistaxis (NoPAC): Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Epistaxis is a common emergency department (ED) presentation and, if simple first aid measures fail, can lead to a need for anterior nasal packing. Tranexamic acid is an agent that contributes to blood clot stability. The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of topical intranasal tranexamic acid in adult patients presenting to the ED with persistent epistaxis, and whether it reduces the need for anterior nasal packing. METHODS: From May 5, 2017, to March 31, 2019, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, 1:1, randomized controlled trial was conducted across 26 EDs in the United Kingdom. Participants with spontaneous epistaxis, persisting after simple first aid and the application of a topical vasoconstrictor, were randomly allocated to receive topical tranexamic acid or placebo. The primary outcome was the need for anterior nasal packing of any kind during the index ED attendance. Secondary outcome measures included hospital admission, need for blood transfusion, recurrent epistaxis, and any thrombotic events requiring any hospital reattendance within 1 week. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 496 participants with spontaneous epistaxis, persisting after simple first aid and application of a topical vasoconstrictor. In total, 211 participants (42.5%) received anterior nasal packing during the index ED attendance, including 111 of 254 (43.7%) in the tranexamic acid group versus 100 of 242 (41.3%) in the placebo group. The difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio 1.107; 95% confidence interval 0.769 to 1.594; P=.59). Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences between tranexamic acid and placebo for any of the secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSION: In patients presenting to an ED with atraumatic epistaxis that is uncontrolled with simple first aid measures, topical tranexamic acid applied in the bleeding nostril on a cotton wool dental roll is no more effective than placebo at controlling bleeding and reducing the need for anterior nasal packing.

Chewing gum vs. ibuprofen in the management of orthodontic pain, a multi-centre randomised controlled trial - the effect of anxiety.

OBJECTIVES: Pain is a common side effect of orthodontic treatment. An objective of this study, part of a large previously reported RCT on pain and analgesic use, was to determine the effect of anxiety on perceived pain and use of analgesia. METHODS: 1000 patients aged 11-17 years, undergoing upper and lower fixed appliance treatment in nine hospital departments were recruited into this two-arm parallel design randomised controlled trial. One arm was given sugar-free chewing gum and the other arm ibuprofen for pain relief. Neither the clinicians nor patients were blinded to assignment. In addition to recording pain experience and analgesic use for 3 days following appliance placement and first archwire change, each patient recorded their level of anxiety immediately following the fitting of the appliance and the first archwire change. RESULTS: 419 chewing gum group (84%) and 407 ibuprofen group (83%) questionnaires were returned following appliance placement, and 343 chewing gum group (70%) and 341 ibuprofen group (71%) questionnaires were returned following the first archwire change. The mean anxiety scores following fitting of the appliance and first archwire change were 2.7 (SD 2.1) and 1.6 (SD 1.8), respectively. There were weak but significant positive associations between anxiety scores and pain scores. Multi-level modelling produced a coefficient for anxiety of 0.23 (95% CI 0.17-0.28) for appliance placement, suggesting a small rise (0.23) on the 11-point pain scale for a one-point increase on the corresponding anxiety scale. Following archwire change, the corresponding coefficient was 0.32 (0.24-0.39). For ibuprofen use, again simple analyses suggested a relationship with anxiety. Multi-level logistic modelling produced an odds ratio for ibuprofen use of 1.11 (95% CI 1.07-1.15) at appliance placement and 1.21 (1.10-1.33) at the first archwire change. There was a 10-20% increase in the odds of using ibuprofen for each one-point increase on the anxiety scale. No such relationship was found between anxiety and chewing gum use. There were no adverse effects or harms reported during the trial. Approvals were granted by the Research Ethics Committee (08/H0106/139), R&D and MHRA (Eudract 2008-005522-36) and the trial was registered on the ISRCTN (79884739) and NIHR (6631) portfolios. Support was provided by the British Orthodontic Society Foundation. CONCLUSIONS: There was a weak positive correlation between anxiety reported and pain experienced following both the initial fitting of the fixed appliances and at the subsequent archwire change. Patients that were more anxious tended to take more ibuprofen for their pain relief.

Comparative assessment of chewing gum and ibuprofen in the management of orthodontic pain with fixed appliances: A pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this randomized trial was to investigate the effect of the use of a sugar-free chewing gum vs ibuprofen on reported pain in orthodontic patients. METHODS: This was a 2-arm parallel design randomized controlled trial in 9 sites in the southwest of England. Patients about to undergo orthodontic treatment with maxillary and mandibular fixed appliances were recruited and randomly allocated to an experimental chewing gum group or a control ibuprofen group. Eligibility criteria included patients undergoing fixed maxillary and mandibular appliance therapy, aged 11 to 17 years, and able to use ibuprofen and chewing gum. The primary outcome measure was pain experienced after appliance placement using a mean of 3 recordings on a scale of 0 to 10. Secondary outcome measures were pain experienced in the subsequent 3 days, pain after the first archwire change, ibuprofen use, and appliance breakages. Pain scores were recorded with a questionnaire and posted to a collection center by each patient. Randomization was by means of a central telephone service and comprised computer-generated random numbers used to generate a sequential allocation list, with permuted blocks of variable size (2 and 4) and stratified by center. Neither the clinicians nor the patients were blinded to the intervention. Patients in the control group were permitted to use ibuprofen only, and patients in the experimental group were allowed to use ibuprofen if they did not get sufficient analgesia from the chewing gum. Data were analyzed using the principle of intention to treat with multilevel modeling to reflect the structured nature of the data (scores within patient within site). RESULTS: One thousand patients were recruited and randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to the chewing gum and ibuprofen (control) groups. The male-to-female ratios were similar in the groups. The pain questionnaire response rates were good at approximately 84% and 83% after appliance placement (chewing gum group, 419; ibuprofen group, 407) and 70% and 71% after the first archwire change (chewing gum group, 343; ibuprofen group, 341). The primary outcomes were similar for the 2 groups: mean pain scores, 4.31 in the chewing gum group and 4.17 in the ibuprofen group; difference, 0.14 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.41). There was a suggestion that the relative pain scores for the 2 groups changed over time, with the chewing gum group experiencing slightly more pain on the day of bond-up and less on the subsequent 3 days; however, the differences had no clinical importance. There were no significant differences for the period after archwire change. The reported use of ibuprofen was less in the chewing gum group than in the ibuprofen group; after appliance placement, the mean numbers of occasions that ibuprofen was used were 2.1 in the chewing gum group and 3.0 in the ibuprofen group (adjusted difference, -0.96 [95% CI, -0.75 to -1.17; P <0.001]); after archwire change, the figures were 0.8 and 1.5 occasions (difference, -0.65 [-0.44 to -0.86; P <0.001]). After appliance placement and the first archwire change, there was no clinically or statistically significant difference in appliance breakages between the chewing gum and ibuprofen groups after either bond-up (7% and 8.8%, respectively) or the first archwire change (4.2% and 5.5%, respectively). No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a sugar-free chewing gum may reduce the level of ibuprofen usage but has no clinically or statistically significant effect on bond failures. REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (79884739) and National Institute of Health Research (6631) portfolios. FUNDING: This research was supported by an award by the British Orthodontic Society Foundation.

Comparative assessment of alignment efficiency and space closure of active and passive self-ligating vs conventional appliances in adolescents: a single-center randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the time to initial alignment and extraction space closure using conventional brackets and active and passive self-ligating brackets. METHODS: One hundred adolescent patients 11 to 18 years of age undergoing maxillary and mandibular fixed appliance therapy after the extraction of 4 premolars were randomized with stratification of 2 age ranges (11-14 and 15-18 years) and 3 maxillomandibular plane angles (high, medium, and low) with an allocation ratio of 1:2:2. Restrictions were applied using a block size of 10. Allocation was to 1 of 3 treatment groups: conventional brackets, active self-ligating, or passive self-ligating brackets. All subjects were treated with the same archwire sequence and space-closing mechanics in a district general hospital setting. The trial was a 3-arm parallel design. Labial-segment alignment and space closure were measured on study models taken every 12 weeks throughout treatment. All measurements were made by 1 operator who was blinded to bracket type. The patients and other operators were not blinded to bracket type during treatment. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were followed to completion of treatment (conventional, n = 20; active self-ligating brackets, n = 37; passive self-ligating brackets, n = 41). The data were analyzed using linear mixed models and demonstrated a significant effect of bracket type on the time to initial alignment (P = 0.001), which was shorter with the conventional brackets than either of the self-ligating brackets. Sidak's adjustment showed no significant difference in effect size (the difference in average response in millimeters) between the active and passive self-ligating brackets (the results are presented as effect size, 95% confidence intervals, probabilities, and intraclass correlation coefficients) (-0.42 [-1.32, 0.48], 0.600, 0.15), but the conventional bracket was significantly different from both of these (-1.98 [-3.19, -0.76], 0.001, 0.15; and -1.56 [-2.79, -0.32], 0.001, 0.15). There was no statistically significant difference between any of the 3 bracket types with respect to space closure. Space-closure times were shorter in the mandible, except for the Damon 3MX bracket (Ormco, Orange, Calif), where active and total space-closure times were shorter in the maxilla. No adverse events were recorded in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Time to initial alignment was significantly shorter for the conventional bracket than for either the active or passive self-ligating brackets. There was no statistically significant difference in passive, active, or total space-closure times among the 3 brackets under investigation.

The effectiveness of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers: a single-center randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) are often prescribed by orthodontists in the British National Health Service (NHS). There is no good evidence that VFRs are more effective than Hawley retainers. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of Hawley and VFRs over a 6-month period of retention. The study design was a randomized clinical trial, performed in a single orthodontic practice. METHODS: Eligible patients treated by a specialist orthodontist were randomly allocated to either Hawley retainers (n = 196) or VFRs (n = 201). Two technicians fabricated the retainers to standardized designs. A blinded, dentally qualified examiner analyzed the records. Maxillary and mandibular dental casts at debond and 6 months into retention were assessed for tooth rotations mesial to the first permanent molars, intercanine and intermolar widths, and Little's index of irregularity. RESULTS: The results showed significantly greater changes in irregularity of the incisors in the Hawley group than in the VFR group at 6 months. There were otherwise no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: VFRs are more effective than Hawley retainers at holding the correction of the maxillary and mandibular labial segments. The median differences were 0.56 mm in the mandibular arch and 0.25 mm in the maxillary arch. Although this difference is unlikely to be clinically significant in the maxillary arch, it could be considered clinically significant in the mandibular arch if located to a single tooth displacement.

Cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction: Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers.

In the United Kingdom (UK) over the last 10 years, there has been a significant increase in the use of vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) rather than conventional Hawley retainers. There are currently no data to compare the cost-effectiveness of this change in practice. The two aims of this study were to compare (1) the cost-effectiveness of VFRs and Hawley retainers over 6 months, from the perspective of the National Health Service, orthodontic practice, and the patient and (2) patient satisfaction in the two retainer groups. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was carried out in a specialist orthodontic practice. Three hundred and ninety-seven eligible patients were randomized to one of two retainer groups, and followed up for 6 months. All subjects were invited to complete patient satisfaction questionnaires. Additional data were collected for the cost analysis from the patient records and national databases. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were used to compare patient satisfaction between retainer groups. In all, 196 subjects were randomized to the Hawley group (mean age 14 years 8 months, 63 per cent female, 37 per cent male) and 201 to the VFR group (mean age 15 years, 59 per cent female, 41 per cent male). VFRs were more cost-effective than Hawley retainers from all perspectives. The majority of subjects showed a preference for VFRs compared with Hawley retainers. There were also fewer breakages than in the Hawley group.