The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Separation Effect and Perception of Pain and Discomfort from Kesling and Elastomeric Orthodontic Separators: An In Vivo Study

Barun D Kumar, Subhash Chandra, Rana NP Singh, Ajoy K Shahi, Swati Sharma, Bishnupati Singh

Keywords : Elastomeric separator, Kesling separator, Separators

Citation Information : Kumar BD, Chandra S, Singh RN, Shahi AK, Sharma S, Singh B. Separation Effect and Perception of Pain and Discomfort from Kesling and Elastomeric Orthodontic Separators: An In Vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (5):508-512.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3291

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 10-08-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: To scrutinize Kesling and elastomeric orthodontic separators, focusing on the separating effect as well as patients’ perception of pain together with discomfort. Materials and methods: The separators tested were elastomeric as well as Kesling separators. Thirty subjects, scheduled for treatment having a fixed orthodontic appliance, were categorized into two groups. In group I subjects, elastomeric separators were placed, whereas in group II subjects, Kesling separators were placed. After 3 days, the extent of separation was recorded with a leaf gauge. A questionnaire of eight questions and visual analog scale were used to note the patient perceptions of pain and discomfort. Results: The mean separation formed by elastomeric and Kesling separator was 0.0457 and 0.0437 mm, respectively, of which elastomeric separator had made highest separation than the other separator used for the generation of separation at day 1 whereas the mean separation created by the elastomeric and Kesling separator at day 2 was 0.2327 mm and 0.1903 mm, respectively. 46.7% of patients on day 1, and on day 2, 56.7% of patients reported discomfort but not pain, while 73.3% of patients on day 3 reported discomfort but not pain from both types of separator. On day 1, 6.7% of patients, 13.3% on day 2, and 6.7% again on day 3 reported feeling pressure but no pain or discomfort. Conclusion: Elastomeric separators exhibited the highest separation compared to Kesling used for the separation, at all three days. The Kesling separator was a separator of choice in cases where the interproximal contact was tight. Clinical significance: Discomfort and pain due to separator will be minimized by reducing the duration of separator placement. Hence treatment acceptability will be more. There is no significant difference found in separation by increasing the day.

PDF Share
  1. Malagan MA, Biswas PP, Muddaiah S, et al. Comparison between efficacy of four different types of orthodontic separators. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(8):41–44. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/9963.4755.
  2. Sandhu GPS, Kanase A, Naik CR, et al. Separation effect and perception of pain & discomfort from 3 types of Orthodontic separators. J Indian Orthod Soc 2013;47(1):6–9. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10021-1121.
  3. Proffit RW, Fields WH, Sarver MD. Contemporary orthodontics, 4th ed. Mosby Company; 2007. p. 411–413.
  4. Mimura H, Takaya T, Matsuda S, et al. Functional role of HSP47 in the periodontal ligament subjected to occlusal overload in mice. Int J Med Sci 2016;13(4):248–254. DOI: 10.7150/ijms.14129.
  5. Tandon S, Ahad A, Kaur A, et al. Orthodontic elastic embedded in gingiva for 7 years. Case Rep Dent 2013;(9):212106. DOI: 10.1155/2013/212106.
  6. Davidovitch M, Papnicolau S, Vardimon AD, et al. Duration of elastomeric separation and effect on interproximal contact point characteristics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Ortho 2008;133(3):414–422. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.02.036.
  7. Vardimon AD, Matsaev E, Lieberman M, et al. Tightness of dental contact points in spaced and non-spaced permanent dentitions. Eur J Orthod 2001;23(3):305–314. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/23.3.305.
  8. Bondemark L, Fredriksson K, Ilros S. Separation effect and perception of pain and discomfort from two types of orthodontic separators. World J Orthod 2004;5(2):172–176. PMID: 15615136.
  9. Hoffman WE. A study of four types of orthodontic separators. Am J Orthod 1972;62(1):67–73. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(72)90126-1.
  10. Al Huwaizi AF. Comparison of forces: comparison of the forces generated by steel, nickel, titanium and elastomeric separators. J Bagh Coll Dent 2008;20(1):78–86.
  11. Goh SY, Tan BS, Mathew T. Perception of pain for different orthodontic elastomeric separators. J Pharm Biomed Sci 2015;5(4):332–337.
  12. Kapoor P, Singh H, Ghai GS, et al. Perception of pain and discomfort from three types of orthodontic separators. Indian J Dent Sci 2013;5(4):6–9.
  13. Ngan P, Kess B, Wilson S. Perception of discomfort by patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96(1):47–53. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90228-x.
  14. Beck VJ, Farella M, Chandler NP, et al. Factors associated with pain induced by orthodontic separators. J Oral Rehabil 2014;41(4):282–288. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12144.
  15. Marques LS, Paiva SM, Vieira-Andrade RG, et al. Discomfort associated with fixed orthodontic appliances: determinant factors and influence on quality of life. Dental Press J Orthod 2014;19(3):102–107. DOI: 10.1590/2176-9451.19.3.102-107.oar.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.