Next Article in Journal
The Distribution of Autoantibodies by Age Group in Children with Type 1 Diabetes versus Type 2 Diabetes in Southern Vietnam
Previous Article in Journal
Incidence Trend of Follicular Lymphoma in Taiwan Compared to Japan and Korea, 2001–2019
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/jcm12041419
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Low-Level Laser Therapy on Dentin Hypersensitivity in Periodontally Compromised Patients Undergoing Orthodontic Treatment: A Randomised Controlled Trial

by
Zhiyi Shan
,
Chong Ren
,
Min Gu
,
Yifan Lin
,
Fung Hou Kumoi Mineaki Howard Sum
,
Colman McGrath
,
Lijian Jin
,
Chengfei Zhang
and
Yanqi Yang
*
Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, 34 Hospital Road, Sai Ying Pun, Hong Kong SAR, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(4), 1419; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041419
Submission received: 6 January 2023 / Revised: 9 February 2023 / Accepted: 9 February 2023 / Published: 10 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Objectives: This study aimed to assess the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on dentin hypersensitivity (DH) in periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Methods: This triple-blinded randomised controlled trial included 143 teeth with DH from 23 periodontally compromised patients. Teeth on one side of the dental arch were randomly assigned to the LLLT group (LG), while those on the contralateral side were allocated to the non-LLLT group (NG). After orthodontic treatment commenced, patients’ orthodontic pain (OP) perceptions were documented in pain diaries. DH was assessed chairside by a visual analogue scale (VASDH) at fifteen timepoints across the orthodontic treatment and retention. VASDH scores were compared among timepoints by the Friedman test, among patients with varying OP perceptions using the Kruskal–Wallis tests, and between the LG and NG with the Mann–Whitney U test. Results: DH generally decreased over the observation (p < 0.001). The VASDH scores differed among patients with varying OP perceptions at multiple timepoints (p < 0.05). The generalized estimating equation model showed teeth in the LG had a significantly lower VASDH score than the NG at the 3rd month of treatment (p = 0.011). Conclusion: LLLT could be potentially beneficial in managing DH in periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.

1. Introduction

Patients with severe periodontal breakdown have a high risk of pathologic tooth migration due to excessive masticatory forces, typically displaying proclination of incisors and dispersed spaces among anterior teeth segments [1,2]. Nowadays, an increasing number of middle-aged populations with periodontal problems seek orthodontic care after inflammation control for better oral function and aesthetics [3]. Current evidence supports that orthodontic treatment could benefit periodontal health by facilitating occlusal force redistribution and equilibrium [4,5,6] under the prerequisite of achieving an inflammation-remitted and stabilized periodontal condition [7]. Sustaining a fully controlled periodontal inflammation is extremely important for periodontally compromised patients during and after orthodontic treatment [8]. Although guided by professional care and instructions, patients are the central executive of their daily oral hygiene and inflammation control [9,10]. Periodontally compromised patients need to self-regulate their oral hygiene intensively, achieve a stable and relatively healthy periodontal status, and guarantee a successful periodontal–orthodontic interdisciplinary treatment [11].
For periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment, unfavourable self-perceptions are critical as they impede oral hygiene behaviours and deteriorate periodontal conditions [12,13,14,15]. Dentin hypersensitivity (DH), characterized by a short and sharp pain in response to external stimuli, was reported among 72.5% to 98% of adults with periodontal diseases [16,17,18,19]. According to the “hydrodynamic theory”, external stimuli result in rapid shifts of the fluids within the dentinal tubules and initiate sensor nerve activation in the pulp and dentine region [20]. The high DH prevalence of periodontally compromised patients is associated with an increasing amount of exposed dentin tubules due to gingival recession, clinical attachment loss, or possible cementum removal during periodontal debridement [21]. Another prevalent unpleasant self-perception experienced by patients undergoing orthodontic treatment is orthodontic pain (OP), characterized by soreness, pressure, and tenderness [22]. OP is related to local ischemia in reaction to orthodontic forces and the activation of sensory endings in the periodontal tissues [23,24]. Previous investigations regarding the mechanism of DH and OP were separate. In the periodontal–orthodontic context, DH and OP may coexist with potential biomedical interactions, since the trigeminal nerve is the common neural pathway that connects them to the somatosensory cortex [22,25]. It is, however, unclear how DH and OP interact during periodontal–orthodontic treatment. Psychological studies suggest that people’s perceptions determine their actions, and pain could affect health behaviours [26,27,28]. For this reason, periodontally compromised patients, in particular, require therapeutic management of DH and OP in order to establish a comfortable and supportive oral hygiene environment during orthodontic treatment [15,29].
Multiple attempts have been made to alleviate DH and OP. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) presents its strength as a novel, safe, and non-invasive approach for regulating biological activities in the dentine–pulp complex and surrounding periodontal tissues without provoking thermal effects [30]. On the one hand, previous evidence supports satisfactory desensitising effects of LLLT on DH for general populations without orthodontic intervention [31]. On the other hand, LLLT was reported to have favourable effects on OP alleviation for orthodontic patients under an optimal range of therapeutic settings [32]. For periodontally compromised patients, one clinical study also detected that LLLT (940 nm and 800 mW) alleviated OP in periodontally compromised patients and inhibited the elevation of interleukin-1β, prostaglandin E2, and substance P during the first month of active treatment [33]. Considering potential biomedical interactions and the common neural transmission pathway between OP and DH, LLLT might be a promising candidate to manage DH for periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Yet, no studies are available to evaluate the effects of LLLT on tooth DH in the periodontal–orthodontic context.
To fill in the above research gaps, this randomised controlled trial was conducted with three objectives: (1) observing DH for teeth in periodontally compromised patients during orthodontic treatment and retention, (2) analysing DH in periodontally compromised patients with varying perceptions of OP, and (3) evaluating the effects of LLLT on DH for teeth in periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.

2. Materials and Methods

This study is a triple-blinded, two-arm randomised controlled trial with a split-mouth design. The protocol was registered on the ClinicalTrial.gov website (ID: NCT03765151). Following the Declaration of Helsinki (version 2008), ethical approval was authorized by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong/Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster (HKU/HA HKW IRB, reference number: UW 18-131). Patients were recruited from Orthodontics and Periodontics Department at Prince Philip Dental Hospital from 2016 to 2018. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

2.1. Eligibility Criteria for the Subjects

2.1.1. Inclusion Criteria

  • Teeth in adult patients of Chinese ethnicity with treated and stabilized periodontitis who were about to undertake adjunctive orthodontic treatment [34] as a part of the occlusal therapy.
  • Teeth in patients whose maximum contact point displacement was greater than 4 mm taking reference to the item 4d in Dental Health Component of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN-DHC) [35,36].
  • Teeth with DH perceptions in response to a chairside air-blast stimulation before orthodontic treatment started.
  • Incisors, canines, and premolars in semi-arches adaptive to probe coverage of the LLLT device without the need for repeated lasers for each treatment session.

2.1.2. Exclusion Criteria

  • Teeth with caries, unsatisfactory restorations, or non-carious cervical lesions close to the pulp chamber (simplified score 0 or 1 for tooth wear index [37,38]).
  • Teeth displayed any indication of pulpitis, pulp necrosis, or acute and chronic inflammation of the periapical areas.
  • Teeth that had been subject to trauma, surgery, or invasive periodontal treatment within the past three months.
  • Teeth from patients who were pregnant or lactating, taking systemic medications, or using desensitising toothpaste.
  • Teeth from patients who required comprehensive orthodontic treatment since teeth could bear heavier forces and undergo long-distance movement than adjunctive orthodontic treatment [39,40].
  • Teeth from patients with severe craniofacial abnormalities, temporomandibular diseases, trigeminal neuralgia, or migraine could affect their subjective judgment.

2.2. Sample Size Calculation

Sample size determination was based on a previous study with similar LLLT settings (940 nm and 1000 mW) [41]. To detect a difference in DH between LLLT (1.36 ± 2.02) and non-LLLT (2.50 ± 2.09) groups over two weeks, 82 teeth were calculated at the 0.05 significance level to reach 80% power by the software G*Power version 3.1.9.2 [42]. Considering a 15% dropout rate, at least 123 teeth were required to recruit for this study.

2.3. Study Design

This randomised controlled trial was triple-blinded, following a split-mouth design. A statistician conducted the randomisation process using a computer program, and the allocation sequence was concealed in a batch of opaque envelopes. Only one designated surgery assistant, who did not participate in the study design and assessment, was allowed to check the allocations, and pre-adjust parameters of the laser device before each treatment visit. Patients, clinicians, and outcome assessors were all blinded to the allocation sequence.

2.4. Interventions

2.4.1. Orthodontic Treatment

All patients fulfilling the above eligibility criteria were subject to adjunctive orthodontic treatment using pre-adjusted fixed appliance (0.022-inch slot system, MBT, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA), which was provided by the same experienced operator (Y.Y.). Individual treatment plans and goals were made via discussion between orthodontists and periodontists and then finalized with patients’ approval. Accordingly, orthodontic forces were delivered to teeth for designated movement. A standardized archwire protocol at the initial treatment stage was employed considering its effect on orthodontic pain [22,35,43], specifically, with a 0.014-inch thermal nickel–titanium (NiTi) wire (G&H Orthodontics, Franklin, IN, USA) for the first two months, followed by a 0.016-inch thermal NiTi wire (G&H Orthodontics, Franklin, IN, USA) for one month. By then, most teeth had achieved a preliminary alignment. Subsequently, 0.018-inch, 0.017 × 0.025-inch NiTi archwires (G&H Orthodontics, Franklin, IN, USA), and 0.017 × 0.025-inch stainless steel archwires (G&H Orthodontics, Franklin, IN, USA) were sequentially administered to the patients depending on individual circumstances. After anticipated treatment outcomes were achieved, fixed appliances were removed, and orthodontic treatment entered the retention phase with immediate delivery of polyvinyl chloride retainers and fixed-lingual retainers (0.0215-inch multistranded wire) attached to the anterior teeth.

2.4.2. Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT)

Teeth on one side of the dental arch were randomly allocated into the LLLT group and received repeated 940 nm wavelength diode laser (EZlase; Biolase Technology Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) by a quadrant-size probe (beam size: 2.8 cm2). Teeth on the contralateral side were allocated into the non-LLLT and subjected to pseudo-laser irradiation with an identical appearance and sound. The output power on the test side was confirmed as 800 mW by a power metre (OPHIR Nova II Power Metre, Ophir-Spiricon, LLC, Logan, UT, USA), while that for the contralateral side was 0 mW. During the irradiation, the quadrant-size probe was firstly placed 1 mm above the buccal cervical areas of the central incisor to the second premolar for 30 s (8.6 J/cm2 energy density for the test side). Then the probe was shifted apically and placed 1 mm above the gingival mucosa covering root regions for another 30 s with the same parameter setting. LLLT was administered repeatedly during the active treatment and retention stage following the schedule shown in Figure 1.

2.5. Outcome Assessment

Periodontitis stage and grade for each patient before orthodontic treatment were evaluated by one calibrated examiner (Z.S.) based on the new classification scheme for periodontal diseases [44,45].
DH for all included teeth was determined by patients’ subjective ratings on one 100-mm visual analogue scale (VASDH, 0 = no sensitivity, 100 = worst possible sensitivity). Air-blast stimulation was delivered by the same assessor (Y.Y.) using the same triple syringe in one dental chair with a 5 mm distance above the cervical area to tooth labial/buccal surfaces. Participants were instructed to place a mark on the VASDH ruler immediately after each stimulation. The scores were recorded at the baseline (Tpre), immediately after orthodontic force activated (Timmd), and at 1 week (T1w), 1 month (T1m), 3 months (T3m), 6 months (T6m), and 12 months (T12m) during active orthodontic treatment. VASDH scores for the included teeth were obtained immediately after debonding (Tdeb), and at 1 week (TR1w), 2 weeks (TR2w), 3 weeks (TR3w), 1 month (TR1m), 3 months (TR3m), 6 months (TR6m), and 12 months (TR12m) during orthodontic retention stage. The fifteen observation timepoints are illustrated in Figure 1 with red vertical lines.
After appliance fixation, every patient was provided with a standardized pain diary to document their initial OP perceptions on the 100 mm VASOP scale (0 = no pain, 100 = worst possible pain) for seven days. The duration of OP was determined by counting each patient’s painful days, and the results were assorted into three levels with 1 and 7 days as cut-off points [46]. The intensity of OP was based on the highest VASOP score over the seven days. Values were classified into three degrees, i.e., “absent”, “low”, and “high” with 1 and 10 units as cut-offs.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics Version 25.0 [47] among the intention-to-treat population to decrease attrition bias [48]. VASDH scores were tested for this normality, and due to its non-normal distribution, Friedman and Kruskal–Wallis tests were conducted with Bonferroni corrections to compare the difference in the VASDH score among different timepoints and patients with varying OP perceptions, respectively. Mann–Whitney U tests were performed to compare the VASDH scores between teeth in LLLT and non-LLLT groups. Finally, a generalised estimating equation model (GEE) was established to investigate the effects of LLLT on DH for teeth with reduced and stable periodontium after confounders adjusted during orthodontic treatment and the first-year retention. The significance level was set as 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of Study Subjects

One hundred and forty-three teeth from 23 Chinese patients (2 males and 21 females) with DH fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included in this study and were randomly allocated to the LLLT group (n = 68) and non-LLLT group (n = 75) based on their attributes of opposing hemiarches. The two groups showed no significant difference in age, gender, tooth type, periodontal classification, perceptions of OP duration and intensity, and baseline VASDH score (p > 0.05) (Table 1). All 143 teeth that were initially randomized had at least three follow-ups (till T3m) and were included in the statistical analysis. The process of the randomized control trial is illustrated in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial (CONSORT) flow diagram (Figure 2).

3.2. DH for Periodontally Compromised Patients Undergoing Orthodontic Treatment

Friedman tests for intragroup comparisons showed a generally decreasing tendency of VASDH over the fifteen timepoints for assessments including eight in active orthodontic treatment and seven in post-orthodontic retention (p < 0.001). During the active treatment stage, the VASDH score dropped rapidly during the first week of orthodontic treatment; then, the decreasing rate became slow, and the VASDH score reached its lowest at T3m. Subsequently, a very mild relapse was observed, with the peak noticeably lower than the baseline level. The VASDH score initially declined during the retention stage in the first week (Tdeb to TR1w) and was maintained at this plateau level for a month (TR1w to TR1m), followed by a slight increase thereafter (TR3m to TR12m) (Figure 3).

3.3. DH in Periodontally Compromised Patients with Different Perceptions of OP Duration and Intensity

The results of comparisons among patients with different perceptions of OP duration showed a statistically significant difference in VASDH score at multiple timepoints. Before orthodontic treatment started, the VASDH score in patients with 1 to 7 days of OP was significantly higher than that in patients with over 7 days or less than 1 day of OP (p = 0.001). After orthodontic force loading, an immediate drop was observed in the VASDH score for patients with OP duration of less than 1 day and within 1 to 7 days, while the VASDH score for teeth in patients with more than 7 days of OP did not decrease until T3m (Figure 4a). Specifically, VASDH scores for teeth in patients with OP perceptions of more than 7 days were significantly higher at T1w compared to patients with OP duration of less than 1 day (p = 0.031). Moreover, teeth in patients with OP duration over 7 days had a higher VASDH score at T1m than that in patients with OP duration less than 1 day (p = 0.020) and between 1 and 7 days (p = 0.012). During the retention stage, a significantly higher VASDH score was detected in patients with OP duration beyond 7 days compared to those with OP between 1 and 7 days at TR3w (p = 0.013), TR1m (p = 0.033), and TR6m (p = 0.011), and compared to patients with OP less than 1 day at TR3w (p = 0.044).
In terms of comparisons among patients with different perceptions of OP intensity, patterns of VASDH score variation were diverse (Figure 4b). The VASDH score for teeth in patients with high OP intensity was significantly higher than for those with low OP intensity at Timmd (p = 0.003) and TR12m (p = 0.001), and higher than for those with absent OP experience at Timmd (p = 0.004), Tdeb (p = 0.035), and TR12m (p = 0.002). The VASDH score for teeth in patients with low OP intensity was significantly higher than for those with an absence of OP experience at T3m (p < 0.001), Tdeb (p = 0.007), and TR6m (p = 0.001), and higher than patients with high OP intensity at TR6m (p = 0.001) (Table 2).

3.4. Effects of LLLT on DH for Periodontally Compromised Patients Undergoing Orthodontic Treatment

Teeth in the LLLT group had a significantly lower VASDH score at T12m for patients with an OP duration of less than 1 day (p = 0.032). The same condition was observed at T3m (p = 0.023) and T6m (p = 0.023) for patients with OP duration over 7 days. As for patients with different perceptions of OP intensity, LLLT presented a favourable outcome in DH alleviation at T3m for patients with a low OP intensity (p = 0.034). No significant difference was found in DH relief for patients with an absence of OP or high OP intensity in all assessments (Table 3).
Generalized estimating equation modelling (GEE) was conducted to analyse the effects of LLLT on DH with other factors adjusted. Potential predictors included treatment timepoint, periodontal classification (stage and grade), tooth type, gender, age, and perception of OP (duration and intensity) (Table 4). The final model indicated that treatment timepoints, periodontal stages, patient’s age, and perceptions of OP (duration and intensity) were significant factors in the prediction of DH for teeth in periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment (p < 0.05). LLLT alone was not substantially effective (p = 0.376) on DH alleviation, but it had interaction effects with treatment timepoints (p < 0.001) (Table 5). Teeth in the LLLT group were estimated to have a significantly lower VASDH score (mean = 15.06; 95% CI: 10.55–21.49) than that for the non-LLLT group (mean = 21.89; 95% CI, 15.72–30.48) at the third month of orthodontic treatment (T3m, p = 0.011).

4. Discussion

This triple-blinded randomised controlled trial achieved the three objectives in terms of observing DH for teeth in periodontally compromised patients during orthodontic treatment and retention, analysing DH for teeth in patients with varying perceptions of OP, and evaluating the effects of LLLT on DH for teeth in periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.
Our results showed that DH for teeth in periodontally compromised patients generally decreased throughout the orthodontic treatment, and the VASDH score was substantially lower in the retention stage than in the active treatment. Current research on the influence of orthodontic treatment on DH perceptions is insufficient and controversial. One rodent study found orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) could increase the trigeminal neurons’ excitability, thus making their receptive areas more sensitive to mechanical and thermal stimulations [49]. Sensory nerve fibres in the dental pulp are afferent endings of trigeminal neurons [50]; thus, a tooth might be more easily activated by external stimuli and experience DH. However, several clinical studies reported that pulp sensibility assessed by electric pulp testing (EPT) devices decreased significantly for teeth with OTM and showed a much higher threshold to respond but pulp sensibility did not alter substantially in reaction to thermal stimuli [51,52]. For the assessment of perceptions, evidence from animal studies is less solid than from clinical studies based on their indirect observations of subjects. Therefore, we assessed DH by patients’ judgement in response to a type of thermal stimulation (air blasts) during orthodontic treatment to obtain a relatively reliable result. The decreasing tendency of VASDH over the orthodontic treatment shown in our study was in line with the previous clinical studies using EPT readings [51,52,53] but inconsistent with their thermal test results [51,52]. One reason for this might be related to the fact that past studies adopted stronger cold stimulations on the tooth (delivered by cotton pellet dipped with refrigerant) and analysed its sensitivity based on positive/negative responses. Their approach is more feasible for the determination of pulp vitality but might omit some gentle and reversible changes in the dentine–pulp complex. We suspected the desensitising effects shown in our study and previous research could result from an escalation of the pulp sensibility threshold during orthodontic treatment, but further well-designed in vitro or in vivo studies are anticipated to confirm this postulation.
In addition, the results of our study demonstrated VASDH scores were significantly higher in patients with relatively high OP intensity and long OP duration than those with absent or brief OP experience in multiple assessments. DH for teeth is different in a periodontally compromised population with varying OP perceptions, indicating the two unfavourable perceptions have some relationship in the periodontal–orthodontic interdisciplinary context. Possible reasons might ascribe to the interactions of underlying mechanisms between DH and OP during orthodontic treatment. To begin with, OTM could induce immediate responses of both the periodontal ligament (PDL) and dental pulp in neural pathology and circulatory vasculature [54,55,56]. There is an increase in the release of neurotransmitters such as calcitonin gene-related peptide, substance P (SP), and endogenous opioids [57,58,59,60]. Later, with blood flow affected by OTM, various inflammatory cytokines were raised including but not limited to prostaglandins (PGs), interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), and interferon gamma (IFN-γ), and this may further change the PDL and dental pulp microenvironments [22]. Finally, nociceptors received by sensory nerve endings in both dental pulp and PDL are transmitted through the trigeminal ganglion, trigeminal nucleus, and thalamus into the brain somatosensory cortex [22,61]. The interpretations of this nociception could be adjusted by other factors on the individual level including the demographic domains (age, ethnicity, gender, etc.), psychosocial domains (anxiety, mood, satisfaction, etc.), and pathophysiologic domains (neuroendocrine-immune system) [62,63,64,65]. This study is the first to observe and verify the relationship between tooth DH and patients’ OP in the periodontal–orthodontic scenario.
The third objective of this study was to investigate the effects of LLLT on DH for teeth in periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Basic research on the mechanisms for the favourable effects of LLLT regarding DH alleviation was generalized in three aspects: first, LLLT alternates the neuronal physiology of sensory nerves and might contribute to immediate pain relief [66,67]; second, LLLT controls micro-inflammation within the dentine–pulp complex, which might reduce DH [68,69]; and third, LLLT could increase the viability of odontoblasts under its optimal settings and thus stimulate secondary dentine deposits [70,71,72]. As shown by our results, the VASDH score for teeth in the LLLT group was significantly lower than the non-LLLT group in periodontally compromised patients with OP duration of less than 1 day and more than 7 days. Previous research suggested OP initiation is related to physiological changes in sensory nerve endings and the release of neuropeptides, while OP persistence corresponds to the accumulation of inflammatory cytokines [22,57,58,59,60]. Taking account of the aforementioned mechanisms of LLLT on DH alleviation and potential biomedical interactions between DH and OP, it is possible that the LLLT’s desensitising effects in the periodontal–orthodontic scenario could be especially potent for patients with short and long OP durations in correspondence with neuronal physiological and inflammatory changes, respectively [68,69,73]. Further biomedical research is warranted to verify this interpretation. In terms of different perceptions of OP intensity, our results showed that the desensitising effects of LLLT on DH were significant for patients with low OP intensity, but no significant differences were detected for patients with absent or high OP intensities. This might be because the desensitising effects of LLLT on DH could be complexed by the combination of physiological and psychological factors concerning perceptions of OP intensity: for patients with absent OP perceptions, patients’ physiological pain thresholds are relatively high with trigeminal neurons hard to activate [66,67], while for patients who perceived themselves having high OP intensity, psychological factors such as catastrophizing might play the major role [74,75].
Based on the final GEE model with confounding factors adjusted, the desensitising effects of LLLT interact with orthodontic treatment progress. This suggests that LLLT has potential desensitising effects on DH for teeth in periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment; the efficacy was especially potent at the third month of active treatment. In addition, results of the final GEE model indicated that gender could impact DH in the periodontal–orthodontic context. To date, there is no consensus on gender differences towards DH: some research found women were more affected by DH than men [76,77], while others suggested males have a higher prevalence rate of DH [78,79]. The controversy among previous research is possibly related to the variations in the sampled populations, study designs, and confounding factors such as erosive dietary intakes and toothbrushing habits [80]. Therefore, although the final GEE model estimated a statistically significant higher VASDH score for male patients compared to females, it is worth bearing in mind that the number of male subjects included in this study was too limited (n = 26) to corroborate the gender difference towards DH.
In summary, this study is the first to observe DH for teeth in periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. The findings address the lack of knowledge relating to the difference in DH among patients with varying OP perceptions and the effect of LLLT on DH in the periodontal–orthodontic context. There are some limitations of the study. First, unlike the previous clinical study that delivered LLLT to treated periodontal disease patients in short time intervals [81], we coordinated the laser application frequency with orthodontic adjustment needs for patients’ convenience [33]. Second, the observation period merely covered six months after laser irradiation, which was still relatively short to evaluate the persistent efficacy of LLLT [31]. Third, most patients who participated in this study were female adults due to their high motivation to improve aesthetics [82]. Although we adopted some statistical strategies such as using a split-mouth design and conducting GEE analysis to minimise potential bias that might be induced by gender imbalance, caution is required for result explication. Investigation into the long-term effects of LLLT on DH in male patients who undertake periodontal–orthodontic interdisciplinary treatment is still highly warranted.

5. Conclusions

DH for teeth in periodontally compromised patients generally decreases over the orthodontic treatment and retention period. The perception of DH is diverse in patients with different perceptions of OP. LLLT has potential desensitising effects on DH in the periodontal–orthodontic treatment context, and the efficacy is correlated with the progress of orthodontic treatment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.S. and Y.Y.; methodology, Z.S. and C.R.; validation, Y.L., M.G. and F.H.K.M.H.S.; formal analysis, Z.S.; investigation, Z.S. and C.R.; resources, Y.Y.; data curation, Z.S. and Y.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.S.; writing—review and editing, L.J., C.M. and C.Z.; supervision, C.Z. and Y.Y.; project administration, Y.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong/Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster (HKU/HA HKW IRB, reference number: UW 18-131).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Y.Y., upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We thank Edmund Choi for his kind technical support on laser application throughout the research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Khorshidi, H.; Moaddeli, M.R.; Golkari, A.; Heidari, H.; Raoofi, S. The prevalence of pathologic tooth migration with respect to the severity of periodontitis. J. Int. Soc. Prev. Community Dent. 2016, 6, S122–S125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Meyer-Marcotty, P.; Klenke, D.; Knocks, L.; Knocks, L.; Santander, P.; Hrasky, V.; Quast, A. The adult orthodontic patient over 40 years of age: Association between periodontal bone loss, incisor irregularity, and increased orthodontic treatment need. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021, 25, 6357–6364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Papageorgiou, S.N.; Antonoglou, G.N.; Michelogiannakis, D.; Kakali, L.; Eliades, T.; Madianos, P. Effect of periodontal-orthodontic treatment of teeth with pathological tooth flaring, drifting, and elongation in patients with severe periodontitis: A systematic review with meta-analysis. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2022, 49 (Suppl. S24), 102–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Azouni, K.G.; Tarakji, B. The trimeric model: A new model of periodontal treatment planning. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2014, 8, ZE17–ZE20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cardaropoli, D.; Gaveglio, L. The Influence of Orthodontic Movement on Periodontal Tissues Level. Semin. Orthod. 2007, 13, 234–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Re, S.; Cardaropoli, D.; Abundo, R.; Corrente, G. Reduction of gingival recession following orthodontic intrusion in periodontally compromised patients. Orthod. Craniofacial Res. 2004, 7, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lang, N.P.; Bartold, P.M. Periodontal health. J. Periodontol. 2018, 89, S9–S16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chan, C.-L.; You, H.-J.; Lian, H.-J.; Huang, C.H. Patients receiving comprehensive periodontal treatment have better clinical outcomes than patients receiving conventional periodontal treatment. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2016, 115, 152–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Terry, M.L.; Leary, M.R. Self-compassion, self-regulation, and health. Self Identity 2011, 10, 352–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Leventhal, H.; Phillips, L.A.; Burns, E. The Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM): A dynamic framework for understanding illness self-management. J. Behav. Med. 2016, 39, 935–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Feu, D. Orthodontic treatment of periodontal patients: Challenges and solutions, from planning to retention. Dent. Press J. Orthod. 2020, 25, 79–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Goh, V.; Corbet, E.F.; Leung, W.K. Impact of dentine hypersensitivity on oral health-related quality of life in individuals receiving supportive periodontal care. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2016, 43, 595–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Taani, S.D.M.Q.; Awartani, F. Clinical evaluation of cervical dentin sensitivity (CDS) in patients attending general dental clinics (GDC) and periodontal specialty clinics (PSC). J. Clin. Periodontol. 2002, 29, 118–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Marques, L.S.; Paiva, S.M.; Vieira-Andrade, R.G.; Pereira, L.J.; Ramos-Jorge, M.L. Discomfort associated with fixed orthodontic appliances: Determinant factors and influence on quality of life. Dent. Press J. Orthod. 2014, 19, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sum, F.; Ren, C.; Gu, M.; Jin, L.; McGrath, C.; Yang, Y. Oral Hygiene is Associated with Orthodontic Pain in Patients with Treated and Stabilised Periodontitis. Oral Health Prev. Dent. 2021, 19, 555–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Chabanski, M.B.; Gillam, D.G.; Bulman, J.S.; Newman, H.N. Clinical evaluation of cervical dentine sensitivity in a population of patients referred to a specialist periodontology department: A pilot study. J. Oral Rehabil. 1997, 24, 666–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. West, N.X.; Lussi, A.; Seong, J.; Hellwig, E. Dentin hypersensitivity: Pain mechanisms and aetiology of exposed cervical dentin. Clin. Oral Investig. 2013, 17, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Splieth, C.H.; Tachou, A. Epidemiology of dentin hypersensitivity. Clin. Oral Investig. 2013, 17, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Drisko, C. Oral hygiene and periodontal considerations in preventing and managing dentine hypersensitivity. Int. Dent. J. 2007, 57, 399–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Orchardson, R.; Gillam, D.G. Managing dentin hypersensitivity. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2006, 137, 990–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Drisko, C.H. Dentine hypersensitivity—Dental hygiene and periodontal considerations. Int. Dent. J. 2002, 52, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Long, H.; Wang, Y.; Jian, F.; Liao, L.-N.; Yang, X.; Lai, W.-L. Current advances in orthodontic pain. Int. J. Oral Sci. 2016, 8, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rahman, F.; Harada, F.; Saito, I.; Suzuki, A.; Kawano, Y.; Izumi, K.; Nozawa-Inoue, K.; Maeda, T. Detection of acid-sensing ion channel 3 (ASIC3) in periodontal Ruffini endings of mouse incisors. Neurosci. Lett. 2011, 488, 173–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Noda, K.; Nakamura, Y.; Kogure, K.; Nomura, Y. Morphological changes in the rat periodontal ligament and its vascularity after experimental tooth movement using superelastic forces. Eur. J. Orthod. 2009, 31, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. West, N.X. Dentine hypersensitivity: Preventive and therapeutic approaches to treatment. Periodontol. 2000 2008, 48, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Creem-Regehr, S.H.; Kunz, B.R. Perception and action. WIREs Cogn. Sci. 2010, 1, 800–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Becker, S.; Gandhi, W.; Chen, Y.J.; Schweinhardt, P. Subjective utility moderates bidirectional effects of conflicting motivations on pain perception. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 7790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Schrooten, M.G.S.; Wiech, K.; Vlaeyen, J.W.S. When Pain Meets… Pain-Related Choice Behavior and Pain Perception in Different Goal Conflict Situations. J. Pain 2014, 15, 1166–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Christensen, L.; Luther, F. Adults seeking orthodontic treatment: Expectations, periodontal and TMD issues. Br. Dent. J. 2015, 218, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chung, H.; Dai, T.; Sharma, S.K.; Huang, Y.-Y.; Carroll, J.D.; Hamblin, M.R. The Nuts and Bolts of Low-level Laser (Light) Therapy. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2012, 40, 516–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Shan, Z.; Ji, J.; McGrath, C.; Gu, M.; Yang, Y. Effects of low-level light therapy on dentin hypersensitivity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021, 25, 6571–6595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Li, F.J.; Zhang, J.Y.; Zeng, X.T.; Guo, Y. Low-level laser therapy for orthodontic pain: A systematic review. Lasers Med. Sci. 2015, 30, 1789–1803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ren, C.; McGrath, C.; Gu, M.; Jin, L.; Zhang, C.; Sum, F.H.K.M.H.; Wong, K.W.F.; Chau, A.C.M.; Yang, Y. Low-level laser-aided orthodontic treatment of periodontally compromised patients: A randomised controlled trial. Lasers Med. Sci. 2020, 35, 729–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Rabie, A.B.; Deng, Y.M.; Jin, L.J. Adjunctive orthodontic treatment of periodontally involved teeth: Case reports. Quintessence Int. 1998, 29, 13–19. [Google Scholar]
  35. Brook, P.H.; Shaw, W.C. The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur. J. Orthod. 1989, 11, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Choi, S.-H.; Kim, B.-I.; Cha, J.-Y.; Hwang, C.-J. Impact of malocclusion and common oral diseases on oral health–related quality of life in young adults. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2015, 147, 587–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Smith, B.G.; Knight, J.K. An index for measuring the wear of teeth. Br. Dent. J. 1984, 156, 435–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lopez-Frias, F.; Castellanos-Cosano, L.; Martin-Gonzalez, J.; Llamas-Carreras, J.; Segura-Egea, J. Clinical measurement of tooth wear: Tooth Wear Indices. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2012, 4, e48–e53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Leiva Villagra, N.; Muñoz Domon, M.; Véliz Méndez, S. Comprehensive orthodontic treatment of adult patient with cleft lip and palate. Case Rep. Dent. 2014, 2014, 795342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Deng, Y.; Sun, Y.; Xu, T. Evaluation of root resorption after comprehensive orthodontic treatment using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT): A meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 2018, 18, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kara, H.B.; Cakan, U.; Yilmaz, B.; Inan Kurugol, P. Efficacy of Diode Laser and Gluma on Post-Preparation Sensitivity: A Randomized Split-Mouth Clinical Study. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2016, 28, 405–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Farzanegan, F.; Zebarjad, S.M.; Alizadeh, S.; Ahrari, F. Pain reduction after initial archwire placement in orthodontic patients: A randomized clinical trial. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2012, 141, 169–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Caton, J.G.; Armitage, G.; Berglundh, T.; Chapple, I.L.C.; Jepsen, S.; Kornman, K.S.; Mealey, B.L.; Papapanou, P.N.; Sanz, M.; Tonetti, M.S. A new classification scheme for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions—Introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification. J. Periodontol. 2018, 89 (Suppl. S1), S1–S8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tonetti, M.S.; Greenwell, H.; Kornman, K.S. Staging and grading of periodontitis: Framework and proposal of a new classification and case definition. J. Periodontol. 2018, 89 (Suppl. S1), S159–S172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Montebugnoli, F.; Incerti Parenti, S.; D’Antò, V.; Alessandri-Bonetti, G.; Michelotti, A. Effect of verbal and written information on pain perception in patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment: A randomized controlled trial. Eur. J. Orthod. 2020, 42, 494–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows; IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gupta, S.K. Intention-to-treat concept: A review. Perspect. Clin. Res. 2011, 2, 109–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sood, M.; Bhatt, P.; Sessle, B.J. Mechanical and thermal hypersensitivities associated with orthodontic tooth movement: A behavioral rat model for orthodontic tooth movement-induced pain. J. Oral Facial Pain Headache 2015, 29, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bender, I.B. Pulpal Pain Diagnosis—A Review. J. Endod. 2000, 26, 175–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Alomari, F.A.; Al-Habahbeh, R.; Alsakarna, B.K. Responses of pulp sensibility tests during orthodontic treatment and retention. Int. Endod. J. 2011, 44, 635–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vlad, R.; Panainte, I.; Hantoiu, L.; Monea, M. The influence of orthodontic treatment on dental pulp response to sensitivity tests. Eur. Sci. J. 2016, 12, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Veberiene, R.; Smailiene, D.; Baseviciene, N.; Toleikis, A.; Machiulskiene, V. Change in dental pulp parameters in response to different modes of orthodontic force application. Angle Orthod. 2010, 80, 1018–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Derringer, K.A.; Linden, R.W.A. Angiogenic growth factors released in human dental pulp following orthodontic force. Arch. Oral Biol. 2003, 48, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Derringer, K.; Linden, R. Epidermal growth factor released in human dental pulp following orthodontic force. Eur. J. Orthod. 2007, 29, 67–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Derringer, K.A.; Linden, R.W.A. Vascular endothelial growth factor, fibroblast growth factor 2, platelet derived growth factor and transforming growth factor beta released in human dental pulp following orthodontic force. Arch. Oral Biol. 2004, 49, 631–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Levrini, L.; Sacerdote, P.; Moretti, S.; Panzi, S.; Caprioglio, A. Changes of Substance P in the Crevicular Fluid in relation to Orthodontic Movement Preliminary Investigation. Sci. World J. 2013, 2013, 896874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nicolay, O.F.; Davidovitch, Z.; Shanfeld, J.L.; Alley, K. Substance P immunoreactivity in periodontal tissues during orthodontic tooth movement. Bone Miner. 1990, 11, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Long, H.; Liao, L.; Gao, M.; Ma, W.; Zhou, Y.; Jian, F.; Wang, Y.; Lai, W. Periodontal CGRP contributes to orofacial pain following experimental tooth movement in rats. Neuropeptides 2015, 52, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chavarría-Bolaños, D.; Martinez-Zumaran, A.; Lombana, N.; Flores-Reyes, H.; Pozos-Guillen, A. Expression of substance P, calcitonin gene-related peptide, β-endorphin and methionine-enkephalin in human dental pulp tissue after orthodontic intrusion: A pilot study. Angle Orthod. 2014, 84, 521–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bletsa, A.; Fristad, I.; Berggreen, E. Sensory pulpal nerve fibres and trigeminal ganglion neurons express IL-1RI: A potential mechanism for development of inflammatory hyperalgesia. Int. Endod. J. 2009, 42, 978–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Beck, V.J.; Farella, M.; Chandler, N.P.; Kieser, J.A.; Thomson, W.M. Factors associated with pain induced by orthodontic separators. J. Oral Rehabil. 2014, 41, 282–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rashiq, S.; Dick, B.D. Factors associated with chronic noncancer pain in the Canadian population. Pain Res. Manag. 2009, 14, 454–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Jennings, E.M.; Okine, B.N.; Roche, M.; Finn, D.P. Stress-induced hyperalgesia. Prog. Neurobiol. 2014, 121, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Kuehl, L.K.; Michaux, G.P.; Richter, S.; Schächinger, H.; Anton, F. Increased basal mechanical pain sensitivity but decreased perceptual wind-up in a human model of relative hypocortisolism. Pain 2010, 149, 539–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Yadav, B.K.; Jain, A.; Rai, A.; Jain, M. Dentine Hypersensitivity: A Review of its Management Strategies. J. Int. Oral Health 2015, 7, 137–143. [Google Scholar]
  67. Chow, R.T.; Armati, P.J. Photobiomodulation: Implications for Anesthesia and Pain Relief. Photomed. Laser Surg. 2016, 34, 599–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Terayama, A.M.; Benetti, F.; de Araújo Lopes, J.M.; Barbosa, J.G.; Silva, I.J.P.; Sivieri-Araújo, G.; Briso, A.L.F.; Cintra, L.T.A. Influence of low-level laser therapy on inflammation, collagen fiber maturation, and tertiary dentin deposition in the pulp of bleached teeth. Clin. Oral Investig. 2020, 24, 3911–3921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Moosavi, H.; Arjmand, N.; Ahrari, F.; Zakeri, M.; Maleknejad, F. Effect of low-level laser therapy on tooth sensitivity induced by in-office bleaching. Lasers Med. Sci. 2016, 31, 713–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Oliveira, C.F.; Basso, F.G.; Lins, E.C.; Kurachi, C.; Hebling, J.; Bagnato, V.S.; de Souza Costa, C.A. Increased viability of odontoblast-like cells subjected to low-level laser irradiation. Laser Phys. 2010, 20, 1659–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pereira, L.B.; Chimello, D.T.; Ferreira, M.R.; Bachmann, L.; Rosa, A.L.; Bombonato-Prado, K.F. Low-level laser therapy influences mouse odontoblast-like cell response in vitro. Photomed. Laser Surg. 2012, 30, 206–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Fornaini, C.; Brulat-Bouchard, N.; Medioni, E.; Zhang, S.; Rocca, J.-P.; Merigo, E. Nd:YAP laser in the treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity: An ex vivo study. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2020, 203, 111740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Närhi, M.; Yamamoto, H.; Ngassapa, D.; Hirvonen, T. The neurophysiological basis and the role of inflammatory reactions in dentine hypersensitivity. Arch. Oral Biol. 1994, 39, 23s–30s. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Lamé, I.E.; Peters, M.L.; Vlaeyen, J.W.S.; Kleef, M.V.; Patijn, J. Quality of life in chronic pain is more associated with beliefs about pain, than with pain intensity. Eur. J. Pain 2005, 9, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Khan, R.S.; Ahmed, K.; Blakeway, E.; Skapinakis, P.; Nihoyannopoulos, L.; Macleod, K.; Sevdalis, N.; Ashrafian, H.; Platt, M.; Darzi, A.; et al. Catastrophizing: A predictive factor for postoperative pain. Am. J. Surg. 2011, 201, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Que, K.; Guo, B.; Jia, Z.; Chen, Z.; Yang, J.; Gao, P. A cross-sectional study: Non-carious cervical lesions, cervical dentine hypersensitivity and related risk factors. J. Oral Rehabil. 2013, 40, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Teixeira, D.N.R.; Zeola, L.F.; Machado, A.C.; Gomes, R.R.; Souza, P.G.; Mendes, D.C.; Soares, P.V. Relationship between noncarious cervical lesions, cervical dentin hypersensitivity, gingival recession, and associated risk factors: A cross-sectional study. J. Dent. 2018, 76, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Rane, P.; Pujari, S.; Patel, P.; Gandhewar, M.; Madria, K.; Dhume, S. Epidemiological Study to Evaluate the Prevalence of Dentine Hypersensitivity among Patients. J. Int. Oral Health 2013, 5, 15–19. [Google Scholar]
  79. Vijaya, V.; Sanjay, V.; Varghese, R.K.; Ravuri, R.; Agarwal, A. Association of dentine hypersensitivity with different risk factors—A cross sectional study. J. Int. Oral Health 2013, 5, 88–92. [Google Scholar]
  80. West, N.X.; Sanz, M.; Lussi, A.; Bartlett, D.; Bouchard, P.; Bourgeois, D. Prevalence of dentine hypersensitivity and study of associated factors: A European population-based cross-sectional study. J. Dent. 2013, 41, 841–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Dilsiz, A.; Aydin, T.; Canakci, V.; Gungormus, M. Clinical evaluation of Er: YAG, Nd: YAG, and diode laser therapy for desensitization of teeth with gingival recession. Photomed. Laser Surg. 2010, 28 (Suppl. S2), S11–S17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gazit-Rappaport, T.; Haisraeli-Shalish, M.; Gazit, E. Psychosocial reward of orthodontic treatment in adult patients. Eur. J. Orthod. 2010, 32, 441–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 12 01419 g001 550
Figure 1. Orthodontic treatment and retention scheme with repeated LLLT for periodontally compromised patients (blue vertical lines indicate timepoints for interventions, red vertical lines indicate timepoints for assessments).
Figure 1. Orthodontic treatment and retention scheme with repeated LLLT for periodontally compromised patients (blue vertical lines indicate timepoints for interventions, red vertical lines indicate timepoints for assessments).
Jcm 12 01419 g001
Jcm 12 01419 g002 550
Figure 2. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial (CONSORT) flow diagram.
Figure 2. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial (CONSORT) flow diagram.
Jcm 12 01419 g002
Jcm 12 01419 g003 550
Figure 3. The plot describes the VASDH score (median and IQR) for teeth in periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment and retention.
Figure 3. The plot describes the VASDH score (median and IQR) for teeth in periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment and retention.
Jcm 12 01419 g003
Jcm 12 01419 g004 550
Figure 4. The line charts describe the VASDH score for teeth in periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment and retention with different perceptions of (a) OP duration and (b) OP intensity.
Figure 4. The line charts describe the VASDH score for teeth in periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment and retention with different perceptions of (a) OP duration and (b) OP intensity.
Jcm 12 01419 g004
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the teeth at the baseline (Tpre).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the teeth at the baseline (Tpre).
LLLT (n = 68)Non-LLLT (n = 75)Sig.
Age Mean ± SD (median)49.05 ± 8.03 (51)48.21 ± 8.42 (50)0.672
Gender Male9 (13.2%)17 (22.7%)0.144
Female59 (86.8%)58 (77.3%)
Tooth type Incisors/canines 35 (51.5%)44 (58.7%)0.387
Premolars 33 (48.5%)31 (41.3%)
Periodontal ClassificationStageII1 (1.5%)1 (1.3%)0.991
III 22 (32.4%)25 (33.3%)
IV45 (66.2%)49 (65.3%)
GradeA10 (14.7%)14 (18.7%)0.527
B58 (85.3%)61 (81.3%)
Orthodontic painDuration<1 day28 (41.2%)30 (40%)0.645
1–7 days20 (29.4%)27 (36%)
>7 days20 (29.4%)18 (24%)
Intensity<0 unit18 (26.5%)15 (20%)0.602
1–10 units27 (39.7%)30 (40%)
>10 units23 (33.8%30 (40%)
VASDH score Mean ± SD (median)44.68 ± 17.99 (40)47.77 ± 17.93 (41)0.212
Table
Table 2. VASDH scores for teeth in periodontally compromised patients with different perceptions of OP duration and OP intensity.
Table 2. VASDH scores for teeth in periodontally compromised patients with different perceptions of OP duration and OP intensity.
VASDH ScoreDuration of OPIntensity of OP (Peak VASOP Score)
<1 Day1–7 Days>7 DaysSig.Absent
(<1 Unit)		Mild
(1–10 Units)		High
(>10 Units)		Sig.
Med (IQR)Med (IQR)Med (IQR)Med (IQR)Med (IQR)Med (IQR)
Active treatment stageTpre40 (19.25)59 (30) a,c40 (22.5)0.001 *48 (24)40 (20)54.5 (41.75)0.096
Timmd20.5 (32.5)43 (32.5)42.5 (38.5)0.06510 (63)37 (27.25)60 (30) d,e0.001 *
T1w19 (52.5)19 (43)41 (29.25) a0.035 *0 (70)25 (43)30 (34)0.256
T1m16.5 (22.75)19 (12)47.5 (40.25) a,b0.008 *10 (26)29.5 (46)20 (13.5)0.128
T3m10 (24.75)14 (20)27.5 (29.5)0.1085 (10)21.5 (23.5) d13.5 (25.25)0.001 *
T6m17.5 (18)12 (19)19.5 (23.75)0.35310 (26)20 (18.75)12.5 (17.75)0.327
T12m20 (18.75)20 (17.25)21.5 (25.5)0.78930 (45.75)20 (15.5)20 (17)0.612
Tdeb14.5 (22.75)12.5 (15)21.5 (30.75)0.1112 (20)20 (22.25) d14 (19) d0.008 *
Retention stageTR1w2 (14.5)3.5 (9)8 (22.5)0.4606.5 (18)1.5 (9.75)4.5 (9.5)0.289
TR2w4 (19.5)3.5 (5.25)4 (13)0.4157 (28.25)3 (9.25)4.5 (9)0.467
TR3w2 (11.5)2 (2.25)8 (11.5) a,b0.007 *3 (18.5)4.5 (8.5)3 (2.75)0.855
TR1m3.5 (14.75)2.5 (5.5)7 (8) b0.039 *3.5 (14.75)7 (8)4.5 (7.25)0.806
TR3m3.5 (11.75)9 (11.5)9.5 (12)0.4233.5 (11.75)8.5 (9.25)10.5 (12.5)0.283
TR6m10 (19.75)4 (4.5)10 (6) b0.010 *2.5 (3.5)10.5 (16.25) d,f4.5 (6.5)0.000 *
TR12m2 (17.5)15.5 (18.25)5 (19)0.0472 (10)3 (10.25)20 (17.5) d,e0.000 *
Intragroup comparison<0.001 *<0.001 *<0.001 * <0.001 *<0.001 *<0.001 *
* p < 0.05, Kruskal–Wallis test and Friedman test for intergroup and intragroup comparisons, respectively, followed by Bonferroni post hoc adjustment; a significantly higher than the VASDH score for teeth in patients with OP less than one day; b significantly higher than the VASDH score for teeth in patients with OP between 1 day and 7 days; c significantly higher than the VASDH score for teeth in patients with OP more than 7 days; d significantly higher than the VASDH score for teeth in patients with a peak VASOP score of less than 1 unit; e significantly higher than the VASDH score for teeth in patients with a peak VASOP between 1 day and 10 units; f significantly higher than the VASDH score for teeth in patients with a peak VASOP of more than 10 units.
Table
Table 3. Intragroup and intergroup comparisons of VASDH scores for teeth in periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.
Table 3. Intragroup and intergroup comparisons of VASDH scores for teeth in periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.
VASDH ScoreDuration of OPIntensity of OP (Peak VASOP Score)
<1 Day1–7 Days>7 Days<1 Unit1–10 Units>10 Units
LLLTNon-LLLTSigLLLTNon-LLLTSigLLLTNon-LLLTSigLLLTNon-LLLTSigLLLTNon-LLLTSigLLLTNon-LLLTSig
Med (IQR)Med (IQR)Med (IQR)Med (IQR)Med (IQR)Med (IQR)Med (IQR)Med (IQR)Med (IQR)Med (IQR)Med (IQR)Med (IQR)
Active treatment stageTpre30 (10)40 (19)0.06256 (35)59 (30)0.65143 (29)40 (23)0.49739.5 (10)48 (24)0.11136.5 (27)40 (20)0.53750 (37)54.5 (42)0.949
Timmd30 (40)20.5 (33)0.57944.5 (53)43 (33)0.68322 (50)42.5 (39)0.29220 (64)10 (63)0.56530 (40)37 (27)0.77344.5 (61)60 (30)0.182
T1w19.5 (25)19 (53)0.91337.5 (47)19 (43)0.27724.5 (37)41 (29)0.09510 (19)0 (70)0.72425 (39)25 (43)0.83532.5 (41)30 (34)0.808
T1m10.5 (39)16.5 (23)0.44820 (11)19 (12)0.76311.5 (54)47.5 (40)0.1318.5 (20)10 (26)0.19728.5 (51)29.5 (46)1.00019 (13)20 (14)0.424
T3m8 (10)10 (25)0.0808 (32)14 (20)0.7063.5 (18)27.5 (30)0.023 *8 (10)5 (10)0.98510 (29)21.5 (24)0.034 *4 (32)13.5 (25)0.091
T6m12 (19)17.5 (18)0.60520 (35)12 (19)0.5186 (20)19.5 (24)0.023 *10 (23)10 (26)0.68715 (27)20 (19)0.20911 (31)12.5 (18)0.615
T12m9 (24)20 (19)0.032 *13 (22)20 (17)0.30020 (36)21.5 (26)0.9659 (30)30 (46)0.09617 (29)20 (16)0.56012.5 (20)20 (17)0.339
Tdeb18 (30)14.5 (23)0.75117.5 (19)12.5 (15)0.78015.5 (34)21.5 (31)0.5190 (25)2 (20)1.00028 (28)20 (22)0.23611 (18)14 (19)0.138
Retention stageTR1w10 (20)2 (15)0.7472 (10)3.5 (9)0.9863 (4)8 (23)0.43610 (15)6.5 (18)0.8283 (11)1.5 (10)0.5495 (8)4.5 (10)0.592
TR2w3 (18)4 (20)0.6844 (8)3.5 (5)0.5903 (9)4 (13)0.5456.5 (13)7 (28)0.5923 (15)3 (9)0.6202 (8)4.5 (9)0.601
TR3w0 (6)2 (12)0.3812 (5)2 (2)0.6612 (11)8 (12)0.1480 (2)3 (19)0.0504 (13)4.5 (9)0.9212 (3)3 (3)0.482
TR1m1 (8)3.5 (15)0.2672 (7)2.5 (6)0.9303 (5)7 (8)0.0851 (11)3.5 (15)0.3303 (5)7 (8)0.2712 (7)4.5 (7)0.357
TR3m3 (16)3.5 (12)0.7819 (24)9 (12)0.5699 (10)9.5 (12)0.6067 (17)3.5 (12)0.8297 (10)8.5 (9)0.69210.5 (24)10.5 (13)0.655
TR6m10 (14)10 (20)0.8095.5 (14)4 (5)0.42720 (21)10 (6)0.1126.5 (13)2.5 (4)0.27418 (20)10.5 (16)0.3454 (13)4.5 (7)0.921
TR12m2 (10)2 (18)0.37012 (14)15.5 (18)0.7369.5 (27)5 (19)0.7032 (7)2 (10)0.69310 (18)3 (10)0.22419 (19)20 (18)0.362
Intragroup comparison<0.001 *<0.001 * <0.001 *<0.001 * <0.001 *<0.001* <0.001 *<0.001 * <0.001 *<0.001 * <0.001 *<0.001 *
* Mann–Whitney U test for intergroup comparisons; Friedman test for intragroup comparisons.
Table
Table 4. Complete and final generalised estimating equation (GEE) models for the VASDH score.
Table 4. Complete and final generalised estimating equation (GEE) models for the VASDH score.
ParametersComplete ModelFinal Model
𝜒2dfSig.𝜒2dfSig.
(Intercept)138.35810.000 *467.840 1 0.000 *
LLLT0.18510.4140.784 1 0.376
Timepoints3579.396140.000 *2178.586 14 0.000 *
Periodontal stage91.92720.000 *77.735 2 0.000 *
Periodontal grade12.45710.000 *---
OP duration6.01620.049 *6.510 2 0.039 *
OP intensity2.55720.27912.878 2 0.002 *
Tooth type2.32710.127---
Gender0.16310.68726.294 10.000 *
Age12.27110.000 *---
timepoints × LLLT381.866140.000 *154.167 14 0.000 *
* p < 0.05.
Table
Table 5. VASDH estimates for teeth in periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment in the two groups based on the final GEE model.
Table 5. VASDH estimates for teeth in periodontally compromised patients undergoing orthodontic treatment in the two groups based on the final GEE model.
VASDH EstimatesLLLTNon-LLLTSig.
Mean95% CIMean95% CI
LowerUpperLowerUpper
Active treatment stageTpre57.57 43.12 76.86 60.29 45.52 79.85 0.682
Timmd45.65 31.41 66.34 47.27 33.52 66.68 0.692
T1w35.97 25.05 51.65 37.10 23.71 58.04 0.839
T1m28.27 19.30 41.41 32.26 21.90 47.54 0.291
T3m15.06 10.55 21.49 21.89 15.72 30.48 0.011 *
T6m19.94 14.01 28.38 23.27 14.51 37.31 0.453
T12m22.57 15.17 33.56 27.27 18.36 40.49 0.409
Tdeb19.93 14.64 27.13 19.18 13.02 28.25 0.812
Retention stageTR1w8.99 5.93 13.62 9.09 5.15 16.06 0.949
TR2w8.67 5.80 12.94 8.05 4.30 15.05 0.765
TR3w5.59 3.91 7.98 6.89 3.99 11.89 0.444
TR1m5.32 3.87 7.31 6.87 4.38 10.78 0.147
TR3m13.10 8.13 21.12 12.70 8.41 19.17 0.835
TR6m12.99 8.75 19.31 11.43 6.61 19.77 0.605
TR12m12.97 8.27 20.35 14.43 8.57 24.32 0.653
* p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shan, Z.; Ren, C.; Gu, M.; Lin, Y.; Sum, F.H.K.M.H.; McGrath, C.; Jin, L.; Zhang, C.; Yang, Y. Effects of Low-Level Laser Therapy on Dentin Hypersensitivity in Periodontally Compromised Patients Undergoing Orthodontic Treatment: A Randomised Controlled Trial. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 1419. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041419

AMA Style

Shan Z, Ren C, Gu M, Lin Y, Sum FHKMH, McGrath C, Jin L, Zhang C, Yang Y. Effects of Low-Level Laser Therapy on Dentin Hypersensitivity in Periodontally Compromised Patients Undergoing Orthodontic Treatment: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(4):1419. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041419

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shan, Zhiyi, Chong Ren, Min Gu, Yifan Lin, Fung Hou Kumoi Mineaki Howard Sum, Colman McGrath, Lijian Jin, Chengfei Zhang, and Yanqi Yang. 2023. "Effects of Low-Level Laser Therapy on Dentin Hypersensitivity in Periodontally Compromised Patients Undergoing Orthodontic Treatment: A Randomised Controlled Trial" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 4: 1419. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041419

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop