RESUMO
AIM: To evaluate the effect of chewing gum on the rate of space closure, oral hygiene, pain during space closure and appliance breakage in patients undergoing fixed appliance therapy. DESIGN: A prospective, single-centre, two-arm, parallel, double-blinded randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Orthodontic unit of a privately funded hospital, Chennai, India. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 28 participants were randomly allocated into a chewing gum group (CGG) (n = 14) or a control group (CG) (n = 14). METHODS: Baseline data were collected at the start of retraction (T0), at 4 weeks (T1), 8 weeks (T2) and 12 weeks (T3) after the start of retraction. Rate of space closure, pain, oral hygiene and appliance breakage were assessed at T1, T2 and T3. Data were analysed using an independent t-test with P < 0.05 considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: The mean rate of space closure in the CGG was 0.9 ± 0.2 mm/month and 0.8 ± 0.2 mm/month in the CG (P = 0.07, 95% confidence intervals [CI] were 0.80-1.01 for the CGC and 0.70-0.91 for the CG). In both the groups, oral hygiene became worse between T0 and T3. At T0 and T1, participants in the CGG reported less pain at 24 h and 7 days when compared to the CG (P < 0.05). At T2 and T3, participants in the CGG reported less pain at 0 h, 24 h and 7 days when compared to the CG (P < 0.05). Appliance breakage in both groups was minimal, with an odds ratio of 0.7 (95% CI 0.1-3.8) and was similar (P = 0.66). CONCLUSION: There was minimal increase that was clinically not significant in the rate of space closure with chewing gum. Chewing gum ensured better oral hygiene, helped alleviate pain and had no effect on appliance breakage during space closure.
RESUMO
Background: Diverse findings have been reported for the cranial base angle (CBA) in patients with CLP (cleft lip and palate) and non-CLP controls. Objective: The aim of this study is to assess and evaluate the CBA in patients with CLP and non-CLP controls. Methods: Data from PubMed, OVID Technologies, Inc., Cochrane, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE for Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) with relevant terms was extracted until December 31, 2020. Inclusion criteria were data of patients with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP). In the case of UCLP and BCLP, patients with craniofacial syndromes were excluded. The study proposal was registered with PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42021228632). Results: Fifteen studies with a total of 2032 participants were included for the systematic review and 14 studies with a total of 1972 participants were included for the meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Modified Newcastle Ottawa scale under seven domains by two authors. Thirteen studies were graded as "good" and two as "satisfactory." The CBA in patients with CLP were greater than the non CLP Class I controls in six of the 15 studies. CBA was greater in patients with CLP than non-CLP controls by 1.21° (95% CI of 0.19-2.22). Meta-analysis reported considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 86%). Anterior (ACB) and posterior cranial base (PCB) lengths were shorter in patients with CLP than in the non-cleft Class I controls by 2.14â mm (95% CI of 0.99-3.30) and 2.06â mm (95% CI of 1.52-2.60), respectively. Conclusion: Most studies were graded as good. Patients with CLP had greater CBA and shorter ACB and PCB lengths when compared to non-CLP controls.