Methods: This cross-sectional observational study involved 465 adults prescribed analgesics for cancer-related pain from 22 sites across Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Pain intensity, pain control satisfaction, and adequacy of analgesics for pain control were documented using questionnaires.

Results: Most patients (84.4%) had stage III or IV cancer. On a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worse pain), patients' mean worst pain intensity over 24 hours was 4.76 (SD 2.47). More physicians (19.0%) than patients (8.0%) reported dissatisfaction with patient's pain control. Concordance of patient-physician satisfaction was low (weighted kappa 0.36; 95% CI 0.03-0.24). Most physicians (71.2%) found analgesics to be adequate for pain control. Patients' and physicians' satisfaction with pain control and physician-assessed analgesic adequacy were significantly different across countries (P < 0.001 for all).

Methods: PubMed, SCOPUS, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Google Scholar electronic databases were searched systematically with restricting the languages to only English and year (January 2001 to March 2020), and studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Study quality and publication bias were assessed by using the Robvis, a software package of R statistical software.

Results: This systematic review included 32 studies (1172 patients) based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Most of the studies reported significant reduction of pain by the use of the laser during TMD treatment. Two-thirds of the study (78.13%) found a better outcome comparing with conventional one. According to Robvis, 84.4% of the studies were high methodological studies with low risk of bias.

Methods: Twenty-two patients (11 males and 11 females; mean age 19.18 ± 2.00 years) having Angle's Class II division 1 malocclusion needing bilateral extractions of maxillary first bicuspids were recruited for this split-mouth randomized clinical trial. After the initial stage of alignment and leveling with contemporary edgewise MBT (McLaughlin-Bennett-Trevisi) prescription brackets (Ortho Organizers, Carlsbad, Calif) of 22 mil, followed by extractions of premolars bilaterally, 6 mm nickel-titanium spring was used to retract the canines separately by applying 150 g force on 0.019 × 0.025-in stainless steel working archwires. LIPUS (1.1 MHz frequency and 30 mW/cm2 intensity output) was applied for 20 minutes extraorally and reapplied after 3 weeks for 2 more successive visits over the root of maxillary canine on the experimental side whereas the other side was placebo. A numerical rating scale- (NRS-) based questionnaire was given to the patients on each visit to record their weekly pain experience. Impressions were also made at each visit before the application of LIPUS (T1, T2, and T3). Models were scanned with a CAD/CAM scanner (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland). Mann-Whitney U test was applied for comparison of canine movement and pain intensity between both the groups.

Results: No significant difference in the rate of canine movement was found among the experimental (0.90 mm ± 0.33 mm) and placebo groups (0.81 mm ± 0.32 mm). There was no difference in pain reduction between experimental and placebo groups (p > 0.05).

Method: Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science (all databases) were searched by 2 reviewers until 29th October 2020. Articles were screened and narratively synthesized according to PRISMA-DTA guidelines based on predefined eligibility criteria. Articles that made direct reference test comparisons to human clinicians were evaluated using the MI-CLAIM checklist. The risk of bias was assessed by JBI-DTA critical appraisal, and certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Information regarding the quantification method of dental pain and disease, the conditional characteristics of both training and test data cohort in the machine learning, diagnostic outcomes, and diagnostic test comparisons with clinicians, where applicable, were extracted.

Results: 34 eligible articles were found for data synthesis, of which 8 articles made direct reference comparisons to human clinicians. 7 papers scored over 13 (out of the evaluated 15 points) in the MI-CLAIM approach with all papers scoring 5+ (out of 7) in JBI-DTA appraisals. GRADE approach revealed serious risks of bias and inconsistencies with most studies containing more positive cases than their true prevalence in order to facilitate machine learning. Patient-perceived symptoms and clinical history were generally found to be less reliable than radiographs or histology for training accurate machine learning models. A low agreement level between clinicians training the models was suggested to have a negative impact on the prediction accuracy. Reference comparisons found nonspecialized clinicians with less than 3 years of experience to be disadvantaged against trained models.

Materials and Methods: Twenty patients with Angle's class II div 1 (10 males and 10 females; aged 20.25 ± 3.88 years) needing bilateral extractions of maxillary first bicuspids were recruited. Conventional brackets MBT of 0.022 in slot (McLaughlin Bennett Trevisi) prescription braces (Ortho Organizers, Carlsbad, Calif) were bonded. After alignment and levelling phase, cuspid retraction began with nitinol closed coil spring on 19 × 25 stainless steel archwire, wielding 150 gram force. 7.5 J/cm2 energy was applied on 10 points (5 buccal and 5 palatal) on the canine roots on the investigational side using gallium-aluminum-arsenic diode laser (940 nm wavelength, iLase™ Biolase, Irvine, USA) in a continuous mode. Target tissues were irradiated once in three weeks for 9 weeks at a stretch (T0, T1, and T2). Patients were given a feedback form based on the numeric rating scale (NRS) to record the pain intensity for a week. Silicon impressions preceded the coil activation at each visit (T0, T1, T2, and T3), and the casts obtained were scanned with the Planmeca CAD/CAM™ (Helsinki, Finland) scanner.

Results: The regimen effectively accelerated (1.55 ± 0.25 mm) tooth movement with a significant reduction in distress on the investigational side as compared to the placebo side (94 ± 0.25 mm) (p < 0.05).