Variables Associated With the Use of Prophylactic Amitriptyline Treatment in Patients With Tension-type Headache.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate differences in clinical, psychological, and psychophysical outcomes according to use of prophylactic medication (amitriptyline) in tension-type headache (TTH). METHODS: In total, 173 individuals with TTH participated. Headache features and symptomatic medication intake were collected with a 4-weeks headache diary at baseline and at 6-months. Burden of headache (Headache Disability Inventory-HDI), sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index-PSQI), anxiety/depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-HADS), and trait/state anxiety levels (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-STAI) were also assessed at baseline. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) were assessed over the temporalis, C5-C6 joint, second metacarpal, and tibialis anterior at baseline. Differences between participants taking or not taking prophylactic medication based on self-perceived effectiveness of the medication on headache characteristics were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 49 (28%) reported taking prophylactic medication for the headaches (amitriptyline: 100%). From these, 11 (23%) reported no effect, 25 (51%) reported moderate effect, and 13 (26%) reported positive effect with medication. Patients taking prophylactic medication had longer headache history, higher frequency of headaches (61% CTTH), higher headache burden, worse quality of sleep, and higher depression than those not taking medication. Prophylactic medication was less effective in patients with generalized pressure pain hyperalgesia. No other significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic medication is used by TTH patients with higher headache frequency, higher headache burden, worse sleep quality, and higher depression. Lower effectiveness of prophylactic amitriptyline was associated with widespread pain hyperalgesia.

Effect of low-level laser therapy on tooth-related pain and somatosensory function evoked by orthodontic treatment.

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) may have an effect on the pain associated with orthodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of LLLT on pain and somatosensory sensitization induced by orthodontic treatment. Forty individuals (12-33 years old; mean ± standard deviations: 20.8 ± 5.9 years) scheduled to receive orthodontic treatment were randomly divided into a laser group (LG) or a placebo group (PG) (1:1). The LG received LLLT (810-nm gallium-aluminium-arsenic diode laser in continuous mode with the power set at 400 mW, 2 J·cm-2) at 0 h, 2 h, 24 h, 4 d, and 7 d after treatment, and the PG received inactive treatment at the same time points. In both groups, the non-treated side served as a control. A numerical rating scale (NRS) of pain, pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), cold detection thresholds (CDTs), warmth detection thresholds (WDTs), cold pain thresholds (CPTs), and heat pain thresholds (HPTs) were tested on both sides at the gingiva and canine tooth and on the hand. The data were analysed by a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). The NRS pain scores were significantly lower in the LG group (P = 0.01). The CDTs, CPTs, WDTs, HPTs, and PPTs at the gingiva and the PPTs at the canine tooth were significantly less sensitive on the treatment side of the LG compared with that of the PG (P < 0.033). The parameters tested also showed significantly less sensitivity on the non-treatment side of the LG compared to that of the PG (P < 0.043). There were no differences between the groups for any quantitative sensory testing (QST) measures of the hand. The application of LLLT appears to reduce the pain and sensitivity of the tooth and gingiva associated with orthodontic treatment and may have contralateral effects within the trigeminal system but no generalized QST effects. Thus, the present study indicated a significant analgesia effect of LLLT application during orthodontic treatment. Further clinical applications are suggested.

Effect of conditioned pain modulation on trigeminal somatosensory function evaluated by quantitative sensory testing.

The aim of the study was to systematically investigate the effect of craniofacially evoked conditioned pain modulation on somatosensory function using a quantitative sensory testing (QST) protocol applied to the trigeminal area in healthy humans. Pressure pain evoked by a mechanical compressive device was applied as conditioning stimulus (CS) in the craniofacial region, with a pain intensity of 5 on a visual analogue scale (VAS: 0-10 cm) (painful session) or with VAS score of 0 (control session). A full QST battery of 13 parameters was performed as test stimuli on the dominant-side cheek. The individual QST data from 11 men and 12 women were transformed into z scores, and the QST data and z scores were tested using analyses of variance. Analyses of variance of pressure pain threshold (PPT) data (log-transformed values and z scores) indicated significant session (P ≤ .003) and time (P < .001) effects with a session-time interaction (P < .001), but no main effect of sex (P ≥ .053, effect size ≥ .166). The session-time interaction showed that the PPTs in the painful session were associated with significantly higher log-transformed PPT values and significantly lower z scores compared with the control session at the time point during CS (hypoalgesia) (P < .001). No other QST parameters were significantly modulated by the CS. Sex differences were not detected in this study; a larger sample size may be needed to further explore this possibility. However, the findings indicate that when extensive QST protocols are applied, PPT may be the most sensitive measure to detect endogenous pain inhibitory mechanisms.