Effects of rapid maxillary expansion on sleep disturbance scale for children: A longitudinal CASE-series study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) on Sleep Disturbance Scale for Children (SDSC) with maxillary atresia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 27 paediatric patients evaluated through a Brazilian version of the SDSC, answered by their guardians at the following experimental time points: T0 (before installing the Hyrax expander), T1 (on the day of expander stabilization), T2 (3 months after expander stabilization), T3 (immediately after expander removal, following 6 months of retention), and T4 (3 months post-retention). Multilevel Poisson analysis adjusted for repeated measures was performed to compare outcomes across the assessment time points. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 9.1 years (SD = 1.46). The total SDSC scores decreased and were statistically significant from T2 onwards (P < .01), with a decrease of 24% at T4 compared with T1 (IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.69-0.84). The mean scores at T4 were already lower than the cutoff point for risk of sleep disorders. Regarding the specific domains, there was a significant reduction in sleep breathing disorders, sleep-wake transition disorders, and disorders of excessive somnolence as of T2 (P < .01), T3 (P < .05) and T4 (P < .05), respectively. CONCLUSION: RME in children with maxillary atresia had a positive effect on the reduction of total SDSC scores after 3 months of expander stabilization, sustained over 6 and 9 months and significant reduction in sleep breathing disorders domain, sleep-wake transition disorders domain, and disorders of excessive somnolence domain over time points.

TMD diagnosis: Sensitivity and specificity of the Fonseca Anamnestic Index.

OBJECTIVE: To verify whether the Fonseca Anamnestic Index (FAI) has adequate sensitivity and specificity to be used in the diagnosis of temporomandibular disorder (TMD). METHODS: Two hundred-sixty-five participants with symptoms of TMDs were assessed through the FAI and through the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) and then classified as sick or non-sick. The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the FAI in relation to the RDC/TMD were calculated using the STATA 14.0 software. RESULTS: Most of the patients were female, white, without a steady job, and the average age was 37.57 years. The FAI showed high sensitivity (97.21%) but obtained a low specificity (26.00%). The positive and negative predictive values were 84.96% and 68.42%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The FAI is very sensitive in identifying patients who actually have TMD but not very specific in identifying non-TMD patients, being indicated only for initial screening of patients.

Rapid LLLT protocol for myofascial pain and mouth opening limitation treatment in the clinical practice: An RCT.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a rapid treatment protocol of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in patients with myofascial pain and mouth opening limitation. METHODS: Twenty patients were randomly allocated into the laser group (LG) (n = 10) and the placebo group (PG) (n = 10). Two LLLT sessions or placebo were performed. They were applied to the pain points upon palpation, with a 48-hr interval. Patients were evaluated for spontaneous pain sensitivity during mandibular movements and for oral health-related quality of life, which was assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile for Temporomandibular Disorders (OHIP/TMD) questionnaire. RESULTS: Two patients from the placebo group were lost during the study. A significant increase in the maximum mouth opening (p = 0.04) and improvement in OHIP/TMD scores (p = 0.003) were observed in the LG after 30 days. CONCLUSION: Spontaneous pain was reduced in both groups with low-level laser therapy.

Treatment of myofascial pain with a rapid laser therapy protocol compared to occlusal splint: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of a rapid low-level laser therapy (LLLT) protocol to Michigan occlusal splint in the treatment of myofascial pain, as well as to evaluate their impact on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL). METHODS: Thirty participants were randomly allocated into three groups: G1: occlusal splint (n = 11), G2: LLLT (n = 10), and G3: LLLT placebo (n = 9). LLLT and placebo were applied in the points of pain upon palpation. RESULTS: G1 presented improvement in pain (p = 0.014) and in the diagnosis of myofascial pain (p = 0.008), while G2 and G3 did not. Regarding OHRQoL, G1 and G2 presented significant improvement (p = 0.005, in both), whereas, G3 did not. CONCLUSION: Michigan occlusal splint was effective in reducing pain and improving OHRQoL. Treatment with the rapid LLLT protocol only provided an improvement in OHRQoL.