Constructing the brief diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (bDC/TMD) for field testing.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in temporomandibular disorders' (TMDs) diagnosis, the diagnostic process continues to be problematic in non-specialist settings. OBJECTIVE: To complete a Delphi process to shorten the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) to a brief DC/TMD (bDC/TMD) for expedient clinical diagnosis and initial management. METHODS: An international Delphi panel was created with 23 clinicians representing major specialities, general dentistry and related fields. The process comprised a full day workshop, seven virtual meetings, six rounds of electronic discussion and finally an open consultation at a virtual international symposium. RESULTS: Within the physical axis (Axis 1), the self-report Symptom Questionnaire of the DC/TMD did not require shortening from 14 items for the bDC/TMD. The compulsory use of the TMD pain screener was removed reducing the total number of Axis 1 items by 18%. The DC/TMD Axis 1 10-section examination protocol (25 movements, up to 12 sets of bilateral palpations) was reduced to four sections in the bDC/TMD protocol involving three movements and three sets of palpations. Axis I then resulted in two groups of diagnoses: painful TMD (inclusive of secondary headache), and common joint-related TMD with functional implications. The psychosocial axis (Axis 2) was shortened to an ultra-brief 11 item assessment. CONCLUSION: The bDC/TMD represents a substantially reduced and likely expedited method to establish (grouping) diagnoses in TMDs. This may provide greater utility for settings requiring less granular diagnoses for the implementation of initial treatment, for example non-specialist general dental practice.

Diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders-INfORM recommendations: Comprehensive and short-form adaptations for children.

BACKGROUND: The Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) are used worldwide in adults. Until now, no adaptation for use in children has been proposed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to present comprehensive and short-form adaptations of Axis I and Axis II of the DC/TMD for adults that are appropriate for use with children in clinical and research settings. METHODS: Global Delphi studies with experts in TMDs and in pain psychology identified ways of adapting the DC/TMD for children. RESULTS: The proposed adaptation is suitable for children aged 6-9 years. Proposed changes in Axis I include (i) adapting the language of the Demographics and the Symptom Questionnaires to be developmentally appropriate for children, (ii) adding a general health questionnaire for children and one for their parents, (iii) replacing the TMD Pain Screener with the 3Q/TMD questionnaire and (iv) modifying the clinical examination protocol. Proposed changes in Axis II include (i) for the Graded Chronic Pain Scale, to be developmentally appropriate for children, (ii) adding anxiety and depression assessments that have been validated in children and (iii) adding three constructs (stress, catastrophising and sleep disorders) to assess psychosocial functioning in children. CONCLUSION: The recommended DC/TMD, including Axis I and Axis II, for children aged 6-9 years, is appropriate for use in clinical and research settings. This adapted the first version for children includes changes in Axis I and Axis II changes requiring reliability and validity testing in international settings. Official translations to different languages according to INfORM requirements will enable a worldwide dissemination and implementation.

Diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders-INfORM recommendations: Comprehensive and short-form adaptations for adolescents.

BACKGROUND: The Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) for use in adults is in use worldwide. Until now, no version of this instrument for use in adolescents has been proposed. OBJECTIVE: To present comprehensive and short-form adaptations of the adult version of DC/TMD that are appropriate for use with adolescents in clinical and research settings. METHODS: International experts in TMDs and experts in pain psychology participated in a Delphi process to identify ways of adapting the DC/TMD protocol for physical and psychosocial assessment of adolescents. RESULTS: The proposed adaptation defines adolescence as ages 10-19 years. Changes in the physical diagnosis (Axis I) include (i) adapting the language of the Demographics and the Symptom Questionnaires to be developmentally appropriate for adolescents, (ii) adding two general health questionnaires, one for the adolescent patient and one for their caregivers and (iii) replacing the TMD Pain Screener with the 3Q/TMD questionnaire. Changes in the psychosocial assessment (Axis II) include (i) adapting the language of the Graded Chronic Pain Scale to be developmentally appropriate for adolescents, (ii) adding anxiety and depression assessment that have been validated for adolescents and (iii) adding three constructs (stress, catastrophizing and sleep disorders) to assess psychosocial functioning in adolescents. CONCLUSION: The recommended DC/TMD, including Axis I and Axis II for adolescents, is appropriate to use in clinical and research settings. This adapted first version for adolescents includes changes in Axis I and Axis II requiring reliability and validity testing in international settings. Official translations of the comprehensive and short-form to different languages according to INfORM requirements will enable a worldwide dissemination and implementation.

Oral appliance influence on jaw function in obstructive sleep apnea.

INTRODUCTION: Oral appliance (OA) therapy in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) could be a risk factor for normal jaw function, given the prolonged effect of an OA in keeping the mandible in a protruded position away from a normal position. This study aimed to assess changes in symptoms and clinical findings related to jaw function after 1 year of treating OSA with an OA. METHODS: In this follow-up clinical trial, 302 patients with OSA were assigned to treatment with either monobloc or bibloc OA. Baseline and 1-year follow-up assessment included using the Jaw Functional Limitation Scale, self-reported symptoms and signs related to jaw function. The clinical examination of jaw function included mandibular mobility, dental occlusion, and tenderness in the temporomandibular joints and masticatory muscles. Descriptive analyses of variables are presented for the per-protocol population. To evaluate differences between the baseline and the 1-year follow-up, paired Student t tests and the McNemar change test was used. RESULTS: One-hundred and ninety-two patients completed the 1-year follow-up (male 73%, mean aged 55 ± 11 years). There was no change in the Jaw Functional Limitation Scale score at the follow-up (nonsignificant). The patients described no change in symptoms at the follow-up, except for improvements in morning headache (P <0.001) and increased frequency of difficulties in opening the mouth or chewing on awakening (P = 0.002). Subjectively reported changes in dental occlusion during biting/chewing increased significantly at the follow-up (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: No changes in measurements of jaw mobility, dental occlusion, or pain on palpation of the temporomandibular joints or masticatory muscles were seen at the follow-up. Thus, using an OA in treating OSA had limited influence on jaw functions and related symptoms. Moreover, the risk of developing pain and functional impairment in the masticatory system was infrequent, indicating that this treatment is safe and can be recommended.

Diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders in children and adolescents: An international Delphi study-Part 2-Development of Axis II.

BACKGROUND: Unlike the psychosocial assessment established for adults in the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD), a standardised psychosocial assessment for children and adolescents with TMD complaints has not yet been established. OBJECTIVES: To develop a new standardised instrument set to assess the psychosocial functioning in children and adolescents by adapting the psychosocial status and pain-related disability (Axis II) of the adult DC/TMD and by including new instruments. METHODS: A modified Delphi method was used to survey 23 international TMD experts and four international experts in pain-related psychological factors for consensus regarding assessment tools for psychosocial functioning and pain-related disability in children and adolescents. The TMD experts reviewed 29 Axis II statements at round 1, 13 at round 2 and 2 at round 3. Agreement was set at 80% for first-round consensus level and 70% for each of the second and third rounds. The psychological experts completed a complementary Delphi survey to reach a consensus on tools to use to assess more complex psychological domains in children and adolescents. For the psychological experts, the first round included 10 open-ended questions on preferred screening tools for depression, anxiety, catastrophising, sleep problems and stress in children (ages 6-9 years old) and adolescents (ages 10-19 years old) as well as on other domains suggested for investigation. In the second round, the psychological experts received a 9-item questionnaire to prioritise the suggested instruments from most to least recommended. RESULTS: The TMD experts, after three Delphi rounds, reached consensus on the changes of DC/TMD to create a form to evaluate Axis II in children and adolescents with TMD complaints. The psychological experts added tools to assess depression and anxiety, sleep disorders, catastrophising, stress and resilience. CONCLUSION: Through international expert consensus, this study adapted Axis II of the adult DC/TMD to assess psychosocial functioning and pain-related disability in children and adolescents. The adapted Axis II protocols will be validated in the target populations.

THE VOICE OF THE PATIENT IN OROFACIAL PAIN MANAGEMENT.

As pain cannot be measured objectively, the use of patient reported outcomes (PROs), and specifically dental PROs (dPROs), is essential for adequate assessment and management of the patient with orofacial pain. For orofacial pain conditions, some of the suitable PROs are specific to dentistry and hence can be labelled dPROs, whereas others are not. There is also a need to understand which outcomes and domains are most relevant to the patient with pain complaints within the context of the biopsychosocial model. Acute pain in the orofacial area is most often related to toothache, whereas the most common chronic orofacial pain are temporomandibular disorders. Other chronic pains in the orofacial area include neuropathic pain and unknown or idiopathic pain. PROs have been fundamental in the development of both screening procedures and diagnostic criteria in temporomandibular disorders. PROs are now often a prerequisite for the most common temporomandibular disorder pain diagnoses. Furthermore, PROs form the basis for decision-making with regard to treatment, prognostics, and referrals. Future areas of development include the standardized use of PROs in the screening and diagnostics of the less common orofacial pain conditions, together with development of core outcomes sets and standardized protocols for the use of PROs in evaluation of treatment including efficacy, compliance, adherence, and side-effects.

Pediatric patients' reasons for visiting dentists in all WHO regions.

BACKGROUND: Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact are the four oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) dimensions (4D) or areas in which oral disorders impact pediatric patients. Using their dentists' assessment, the study aimed to evaluate whether pediatric dental patients' oral health concerns fit into the 4D of the Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) construct. METHODS: Dentists who treat children from 32 countries and all WHO regions were selected from a web-based survey of 1580 international dentists. Dentists were asked if their pediatric patients with current or future oral health concerns fit into the 4D of the Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) construct. Proportions of all pediatric patients' oral health problems and prevention needs were computed. FINDINGS: Data from 101 dentists treating children only and 523 dentists treating children and adults were included. For 90% of pediatric patients, their current oral health problems fit well in the four OHRQoL dimensions. For 91% of oral health problems they intended to prevent in the future were related to these dimensions as well. Both numbers increased to at least 96% when experts analyzed dentists´ explanations of why some oral health problems would not fit these four categories. CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed the four fundamental components of dental patients, i.e., the four OHRQoL dimensions (Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact) are also applicable for pediatric patients, regardless of whether they have current or future oral health concerns, and should be considered when measuring OHRQoL in the pediatric dental patient population.

Mapping Oral Disease Impact with a Common Metric (MOM)-Project summary and recommendations.

Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact-the dimensions of oral health-related quality of life-capture dental patients' oral health problems worldwide and regardless of whether the patient currently suffers from oral diseases or intends to prevent them in the future. Using scores for these dimensions, the project Mapping Oral Disease Impact with a Common Metric (MOM) aims to provide four-dimensional oral health impact information across oral diseases and settings. In this article, project authors summarize MOM's findings and provide recommendations about how to improve standardized oral health impact assessment. Project MOM's systematic reviews identified four-dimensional impact information for 189 adult and 22 pediatric patient populations that were contained in 170 publications. A typical functional, pain-related, aesthetical, and psychosocial impact (on a 0-8 impact metric based on two items with a response format 0 = never, 1 = hardly ever, 2 = occasionally, 3 = fairly often, 4 = very often) was about 2 to 3 units. Project MOM provides five recommendations to improve standardized oral health impact assessment for all oral diseases in all settings.

Diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) for children and adolescents: An international Delphi study-Part 1-Development of Axis I.

BACKGROUND: Since in children and adolescence prevalence is assessed mainly on self-reported or proxy-reported signs and symptoms; there is a need to develop a more comprehensive standardised process for the collection of clinical information and the diagnosis of TMD in these populations. OBJECTIVE: To develop new instruments and to adapt the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) for the evaluation of TMD in children and adolescents. METHOD: A modified Delphi method was used to seek international consensus among TMD experts. Fourteen clinicians and researchers in the field of oro-facial pain and TMD worldwide were invited to participate in a workshop initiated by the International Network for Orofacial Pain and Related Disorders Methodology (INfORM scientific network) at the General Session of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR, London 2018), as the first step in the Delphi process. Participants discussed the protocols required to make physical diagnoses included in the Axis I of the DC/TMD. Thereafter, nine experts in the field were added, and the first Delphi round was created. This survey included 60 statements for Axis I, and the experts were asked to respond to each statement on a five-item Likert scale ranging from 'Strongly disagree' to 'Strongly agree'. Consensus level was set at 80% agreement for the first round, and at 70% for the next. RESULTS: After three rounds of the Delphi process, a consensus among TMD experts was achieved and two adapted DC/TMD protocols for Axis I physical diagnoses for children and adolescents were developed. CONCLUSION: Through international consensus among TMD experts, this study adapted the Axis I of the DC/TMD for use in evaluating TMD in children and adolescents.

Feasibility and reliability of intraorally evoked "nociceptive-specific" blink reflexes.

OBJECTIVES: The "nociceptive-specific" blink reflex (nBR) evoked by extraoral stimulation has been used to assess trigeminal nociceptive processing in patients with trigeminal nerve damage regardless of the site of damage. This study aimed to test the feasibility of nBR elicited by intraoral stimulation, compare intraoral and extraoral nBR and assess the intrarater and interrater reliability of the intraoral nBR for the maxillary (V2) and mandibular (V3) branches of the trigeminal nerve. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 17 healthy participants, nBR was elicited by stimulation of two extraoral and two intraoral sites by two operators and repeated intraorally by one operator. Main outcome variables were intraoral stimulus-evoked pain scores and nBR R2 responses at different stimulus intensities. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess reliability. RESULTS: Dependent on the stimulus intensity, intraoral stimulation evoked R2 responses in up to 12/17 (70.6%) participants for V2 and up to 8/17 (47.1%) participants for V3. Pain scores (p < 0.003) and R2 responses (p < 0.004) increased with increasing intensities for V2, but not V3. The R2 responses were significantly smaller with intraoral stimulation compared to extraoral stimulation (p < 0.014). Overall, ICCs were fair to excellent for V2 but poor for V3. CONCLUSION: Intraorally evoked nBR was feasible in a subset of healthy participants and was less responsive than nBR with extraoral stimulation. The V2 nBR showed better reliability than V3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The nBR can be used to assess nerve damage to the maxillary intraoral regions, though other measures may need to be considered for the mandibular intraoral regions.

Does adolescent self-reported TMD pain persist into early adulthood? A longitudinal study.

Objective: To follow up 2209 individuals in a longitudinal study and assess self-reported TMD pain, painful and non-painful comorbid conditions, and pain-related disability.Material and methods: During 2012-2014, questionnaires were sent to 2209 eligible individuals who had been screened for TMD pain each year during 2000-2003. The two screening questions were (1) Do you have pain in the temple, face, jaw joint, or jaws once a week or more often? and (2) Do you have pain when you open your mouth wide or chew once a week or more often? If the patient answered 'yes' to one or both of the questions, TMD pain was recorded. Non-respondents received reminders; telephone interviews were offered a randomised group. The questionnaire queried TMD pain, and painful and non-painful comorbid conditions.Results: The overall response rate was 36.5%. Individuals were placed into one of four pain groups defined by their pain experience at baseline and at the follow-up: no TMD pain (69.0%), new TMD pain (13.0%), previous TMD pain (9.9%), and persistent TMD pain (8.1%). Based on the self-report surveys, significantly more responders with TMD pain at follow-up had had pain as adolescents than not. Of adolescents with TMD pain, 45.1% had pain at follow-up as young adults, while 15.8% had pain at follow-up without a previous history of TMD pain. Individuals with persistent TMD pain had high frequencies of comorbid pains (p < .001), 45.2% reported moderate-severe depression scores (p < .001), and 13.0% had moderate pain-related disability (GCPS).Conclusions: Based on self-report surveys, TMD pain in adolescence appears to triple the risk of TMD pain in young adulthood, and persistent pain increased comorbid pain and psychosocial distress.

The impact of oro-facial pain conditions on oral health-related quality of life: A systematic review.

Pain in the oro-facial region is one of the most common reasons for patients to seek dental treatment. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) can be affected not only by pain, but also by other oral disorders. Four main dimensions, Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance and Psychosocial Impact, have been suggested to cover different areas of OHRQoL. The aim of this systematic review was to map the impact of oro-facial pain conditions on the Orofacial Pain dimension of OHRQoL (PROSPERO registration: CRD42017064033). Studies were included if they reported Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) mean or median domain scores for patients with odontogenic pain, oral mucosal pain/burning mouth syndrome (BMS), third molar extractions or temporomandibular disorders (TMD). A search in PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL and PsycINFO on 8 June 2017, updated 14 January 2019, combined with a hand search identified 2104 articles. After screening of abstracts, 1607 articles were reviewed in full text and 36 articles were included that reported OHIP data for 44 patient populations including 5849 patients. Typical Orofacial Pain impact for all four conditions (odontogenic pain, oral mucosal pain/BMS, pain after third molar extractions and TMD) was between 2 and 3 on a 0-8 converted OHIP scale with the highest reported impact for pain after 3rd molar extractions. This review provides standardised information about OHRQoL impact from four oro-facial pain conditions as a model for the Orofacial Pain dimension. The results show moderate impact for the pain dimension of OHRQoL in patients with common oro-facial pain conditions.

Challenges in the clinical implementation of a biopsychosocial model for assessment and management of orofacial pain.

Distress, suffering and care-seeking behaviour are characteristics of pain-related disease and illness. Pain that transitions from an acute to a chronic phase carries with it the potential of further effects: these include a worsening of the disease or illness; high-impact chronic pain; and substantial personal, societal and economic burden. The biopsychosocial model directly addresses these multiple processes, yet clinical frameworks supporting this model are not universally implemented. This paper explores barriers to clinical implementation of a full biopsychosocial framework for temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and other oro-facial pain (OFP) conditions. In June 2016, INfORM invited OFP researchers to a workshop designed to optimise the DC/TMD Axis-II. Workshop groups identified five sources of implementation barriers: (1) cultures and societies, (2) levels-of-care settings, (3) health services, (4) cross-cultural validity of self-report instruments and (5) provider and patient health literacy. Three core problems emerged: (A) mental health aspects are seldom fully considered, thus impairing the recognition of illness, (B) training in use of validated multi-axial assessment protocols is under-rated and insufficiently used, and (C) clinical assessment often fails to recognise that sensory and emotional dimensions are fundamental aspects of pain. To improve patient care, these barriers and problems require action. Most importantly, TMD/OFP educators and researchers need to coordinate globally and (i) be educated in the biopsychosocial model, (ii) implement evidence-based biopsychosocial guidelines for assessment and management of OFP conditions at their institutions, (iii) incorporate this model in undergraduate and postgraduate dental curricula and (iv) be responsive to stakeholders, including regulatory authorities and practitioners.

Why Patients Visit Dentists - A Study in all World Health Organization Regions.

OBJECTIVE: The dimensions of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact are the major areas where patients are impacted by oral diseases and dental interventions. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether dental patients' reasons to visit the dentist fit the 4 OHRQoL dimensions. METHODS: Dentists (N = 1580) from 32 countries participated in a web-based survey. For their patients with current oral health problems, dentists were asked whether these problems were related to teeth, mouth, and jaws' function, pain, appearance, or psychosocial impact or whether they do not fit the aforementioned 4 categories. Dentists were also asked about their patients who intended to prevent future oral health problems. For both patient groups, the proportions of oral health problems falling into the 4 OHRQoL dimensions were calculated. RESULTS: For every 100 dental patients with current oral health problems, 96 had problems related to teeth, mouth, and jaws' function, pain, appearance, or psychosocial impact. For every 100 dental patients who wanted to prevent future oral health problems, 92 wanted to prevent problems related to these 4 OHRQoL dimensions. Both numbers increased to at least 98 of 100 patients when experts analyzed dentists' explanations of why some oral health problems would not fit the four dimension. For the remaining 2 of 100 patients, none of the dentist-provided explanations suggested evidence against the OHRQoL dimensions as the concepts that capture dental patients' suffering. CONCLUSION: Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact capture dental patients' oral health problems worldwide. These 4 OHRQoL dimensions offer a psychometrically sound and practical framework for patient care and research, identifying what is important to dental patients.

Prevalence and normative values for jaw functional limitations in the general population in Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: For jaw functional limitations measured by the Jaw Functional Limitation Scale (JFLS), (a) determining prevalence in the Swedish general adult population, (b) investigating the influence of demographic factors and self-reported dental status and (c) deriving normative values. METHODS: A random sample of the general adult population in Sweden was approached (response rate: 46%, N = 1,372). Prevalence was determined for the JFLS summary score and individual items. The influence of age, gender and dental status was investigated with regression analyses and normative values presented. RESULTS: The JFLS median score was 0, and all items had prevalences ≤30%. Age and gender did not influence jaw functional limitations but dental status did. Normative JFLS scores were 1, 9 and 28 for the 7th, 8th and 9th deciles, respectively. In dental status-stratified norms, 9th deciles were 20, 43 and 100, for subjects with natural teeth only, removable and complete dentures, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Swedish general adult population had excellent jaw function, but dental status was major determinant. In the absence of information linking JFLS scores to important patient concerns, the score distribution can serve as a reference with the 9th decile as threshold for functional limitation.

Use of bibloc and monobloc oral appliances in obstructive sleep apnoea: a multicentre, randomized, blinded, parallel-group equivalence trial.

Background: The clinical benefit of bibloc over monobloc appliances in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We hypothesized that the two types of appliances are equally effective in treating OSA. Objective: To compare the efficacy of monobloc versus bibloc appliances in a short-term perspective. Patients and methods: In this multicentre, randomized, blinded, controlled, parallel-group equivalence trial, patients with OSA were randomly assigned to use either a bibloc or a monobloc appliance. One-night respiratory polygraphy without respiratory support was performed at baseline, and participants were re-examined with the appliance in place at short-term follow-up. The primary outcome was the change in the apnoea-hypopnea index (AHI). An independent person prepared a randomization list and sealed envelopes. Evaluating dentist and the biomedical analysts who evaluated the polygraphy were blinded to the choice of therapy. Results: Of 302 patients, 146 were randomly assigned to use the bibloc and 156 the monobloc device; 123 and 139 patients, respectively, were analysed as per protocol. The mean changes in AHI were -13.8 (95% confidence interval -16.1 to -11.5) in the bibloc group and -12.5 (-14.8 to -10.3) in the monobloc group. The difference of -1.3 (-4.5 to 1.9) was significant within the equivalence interval (P = 0.011; the greater of the two P values) and was confirmed by the intention-to-treat analysis (P = 0.001). The adverse events were of mild character and were experienced by similar percentages of patients in both groups (39 and 40 per cent for the bibloc and monobloc group, respectively). Limitations: The study shows short-term results with a median time from commencing treatment to the evaluation visit of 56 days and long-term data on efficacy and harm are needed to be fully conclusive. Conclusion: In a short-term perspective, both appliances were equivalent in terms of their positive effects for treating OSA and caused adverse events of similar magnitude. Trial registration: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT02148510).

Effects of Low-Intensity Contractions of Different Craniofacial Muscles in Healthy Participants - An Experimental Cross-Over Study.

OBJECTIVE: Repetitive jaw-muscle activity characterized by clenching or grinding of the teeth and/or by bracing or thrusting of the mandible, ie, bruxism, is traditionally linked to pain and unpleasantness in the active muscles. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of standardized craniofacial muscle contractions on self-reported symptoms. METHODS: Sixteen healthy volunteers performed six 5-minute bouts of 20% maximal voluntary contraction task of the jaw-closing (Jaw), the orbicularis-oris (O-oris), and the orbicularis-oculi (O-oculi) muscles. Participants rated their perceived pain, unpleasantness, fatigue, and mental stress levels before, during, and after the contraction tasks on 0-10 Numeric Rating Scales (NRS). Each muscle contraction task (= 1 session) was separated by at least 1 week and the order of the sessions was randomized in each subject. RESULTS: All muscle contraction tasks evoked significant increases in NRS scores of pain (mean ± SD: Jaw; 3.8 ± 2.7, O-oris; 1.9 ± 2.2, O-oculi; 1.4 ± 1.3, P < .014), unpleasantness (Jaw; 4.1 ± 2.5, O-oris; 2.1 ± 1.9, O-oculi; 2.9 ± 1.8, P < .001), fatigue (Jaw; 5.8 ± 2.0, O-oris; 3.2 ± 2.3, O-oculi; 3.6 ± 1.9, P < .001), and mental stress (Jaw; 4.1 ± 2.1, O-oris; 2.2 ± 2.7, O-oculi; 2.9 ± 2.2, P < .001). The Jaw contractions were associated with higher NRS scores compared with the O-oris and the O-oculi contractions (P < .005) without differences between the O-oris and the O-oculi (P > .063). All symptoms disappeared within 1 day (P > .469). CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that submaximal static contractions of different craniofacial muscle groups could evoke transient, mild to moderate levels of muscle pain and fatigue and increased stress scores. The fatigue resistance may differ between different muscle groups. Further studies are warranted to better understand the contribution of specific craniofacial muscle groups for the characteristic presentation of musculoskeletal pain conditions in the head.

Cross-cultural differences in types and beliefs about treatment in women with temporomandibular disorder pain.

OBJECTIVES: Women with temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain from three cultures were assessed for type of treatment received and core illness beliefs. METHODS: In a clinical setting, 122 women patients with chronic TMD pain (39 Saudis, 41 Swedes and 42 Italians) were evaluated for patient characteristics, type of practitioner, type of treatment received and beliefs about TMD prior to consultation in TMD specialist centres. Measures included a survey of treatments received and a belief scale regarding contributing, aggravating and treatment-relevant factors related to the pain. All questionnaires were translated from English and culturally adapted. Comparisons among cultural groups were performed using a linear regression model for continuous variables and logistic regression model for dichotomous variables. A P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The study found no significant associations between cultures and the type of practitioners consulted previously. Treatments differed among cultures: Swedes most commonly received behavioural therapy, acupuncture and an occlusal appliance; Saudis most commonly received Islamic medicine; and Italians most commonly received an antidepressant. Swedes were significantly more likely than Saudis and Italians to believe that TMD pain treatment should address behavioural factors. CONCLUSIONS: Among Saudi, Italian and Swedish women with chronic TMD pain, culture does not influence the type of practitioner consulted before visiting a TMD specialist or their beliefs about contributing and aggravating factors for their pain. However, treatment types and beliefs concerning mechanisms underlying the pain differed cross-culturally, with local availability or larger cultural beliefs also probably influencing the types of treatments that TMD patients pursue.

Dentists' attitudes towards acute pharmacological pain management in children and adolescents.

AIM: This study aimed to investigate Swedish dentists' attitudes regarding pain management strategies for treating children and adolescents. It assessed recommendations for pre- and postoperative analgesics, and use of local anaesthesia, and whether application of these strategies differs between general dental practitioners (GDPs) and specialists in paediatric dentistry (SPDs). DESIGN: We invited all GDPs (n = 807) in southern Sweden (Region Skåne), and all registered SPDs (n = 122) working in Sweden (929 actively practising dentists under age 65 years) to participate in a postal survey on pain management in paediatric dental care. RESULTS: The SPDs reported using all types of pain-reducing strategies more frequently than GDPs except local anaesthesia when extracting a permanent premolar, which SPDs and GDPs used equally often. Preoperative analgesic use was greater among SPDs than GDPs. GDPs used local anaesthesia less frequently for filling therapy in primary teeth than in permanent teeth. CONCLUSIONS: SPDs recommend preoperative analgesics more often than GDPs do. GDPs seem to underuse local anaesthetics when treating children and adolescents. SPDs also use pain management strategies more frequently than GDPs. Among GDPs, pain management is less frequent when treating primary teeth than permanent teeth.

Temporomandibular disorders: Old ideas and new concepts.

Background Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) is an umbrella term for pain and dysfunction involving the masticatory muscles and the temporomandibular joints (TMJs). TMD is the most common orofacial pain condition. Its prominent features include regional pain in the face and preauricular area, limitations in jaw movement, and noise from the TMJs during jaw movements. TMD affects up to 15% of adults and 7% of adolescents. Chronic pain is the overwhelming reason that patients with TMD seek treatment. TMD can associate with impaired general health, depression, and other psychological disabilities, and may affect the quality of life of the patient. Assessment Evaluations indicate that the recently published Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) are reliable and valid. These criteria cover the most common types of TMD, which include pain-related disorders (e.g., myalgia, headache attributable to TMD, and arthralgia) as well as disorders associated with the TMJ (primarily disc displacements and degenerative disease). As peripheral mechanisms most likely play a role in the onset of TMD, a detailed muscle examination is recommended. The persistence of pain involves more central factors, such as sensitization of the supraspinal neurons and second-order neurons at the level of the spinal dorsal horn/trigeminal nucleus, imbalanced antinociceptive activity, and strong genetic predisposition, which also is included in DC/TMD. Conclusion The etiology is complex and still not clearly understood, but several biological and psychosocial risk factors for TMD have been identified. Several studies indicate that patients with TMD improve with a combination of noninvasive therapies, including behavior therapy, pharmacotherapy, physical therapy, and occlusal appliances. More stringently designed studies, however, are needed to assess treatment efficacy and how to tailor treatment to the individual patient.