Intraoral electrostimulator for xerostomia relief: a long-term, multicenter, open-label, uncontrolled, clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: A previous sham-controlled multinational study demonstrated the short-term efficacy and safety for xerostomia treatment of an intraoral device that delivers electrostimulation to the lingual nerve. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that those beneficial effects would be sustained over an 11-month period. STUDY DESIGN: The device was tested on a mixed sample of 94 patients with xerostomia in an open-label, uncontrolled, prospective multicenter trial. Statutory outcome assessments were done at 5th, 8th, and 11th months and analyzed by multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Improvements achieved at month 5 from baseline were sustained throughout the follow-up period for the primary outcome, xerostomia severity, and the secondary outcomes resting whole salivary flow rate, xerostomia frequency, oral discomfort, and difficulties in speech, swallowing, and sleeping. No significant side effects were detected. CONCLUSIONS: The beneficial effects of a removable intraoral electrostimulating device were sustained for an 11-month period.

Efficacy and safety of an intraoral electrostimulation device for xerostomia relief: a multicenter, randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of an intraoral electrostimulation device, consisting of stimulating electrodes, an electronic circuit, and a power source, in treating xerostomia. The device delivers electrostimulation through the oral mucosa to the lingual nerve in order to enhance the salivary reflex. METHODS: The device was tested on a sample of patients with xerostomia due to Sjögren's syndrome and other sicca conditions in a 2-stage prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Stage I was a double-blind, crossover stage designed to compare the effects of the electrically active device with the sham device, each used for 1 month, and stage II was a 3-month open-label stage designed to assess the long-term effects of the active device. Improvement in xerostomia severity from baseline was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients were randomized. In stage I, the active device performed better than the sham device for patient-reported xerostomia severity (P<0.002), xerostomia frequency (P<0.05), quality of life impairment (P<0.01), and swallowing difficulty (P<0.02). At the end of stage II, statistically significant improvements were verified for patient-reported xerostomia severity (P<0.0001), xerostomia frequency (P<0.0001), oral discomfort (P<0.001), speech difficulty (P<0.02), sleeping difficulty (P<0.001), and resting salivary flow rate (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that daily use of the device alleviated oral dryness, discomfort, and some complications of xerostomia, such as speech and sleeping difficulties, and increased salivary output. The results show a cumulative positive effect of the device over the period of the study, from baseline to the end of the trial.

Neuro-reflexotherapy for the management of myofascial temporomandibular joint pain: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of neuro-reflexotherapy intervention (NRT) for treating temporomandibular joint dysfunction attributed to myofascial pain. Neuro-reflexotherapy intervention consists of the temporary implantation of epidermal devices in trigger points in the back and ear. It has shown efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness in treating subacute and chronic common back pain. No study, however, has explored its efficacy in treating myofascial temporomandibular joint pain (MF/TMJP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients with MF/TMJP for more than 3 months in spite of conservative treatment, and with no evidence of major structural damage in the joint, were recruited at the Maxillofacial Department of the Hospital Clínico Universitario, a teaching hospital in Madrid, Spain. Patients were randomly assigned to an intervention group and to a control group. Patients in the treated group underwent 2 NRTs, immediately after baseline assessment and 45 days later. Sham interventions in the control group consisted of placement of the same number of epidermal devices within a 5-cm radius of the target zones. In both groups, conservative treatment during follow-up was allowed and recorded. Patients underwent clinical evaluations on 4 occasions: 5 minutes before intervention, 5 minutes after intervention, and 45 and 90 days later. The preintervention assessment was performed by the physician at the hospital service who included the patient in the study. The 3 follow-up assessments were performed independently by 1 of 2 physicians who had no connection with the research team, and who were blinded to patients' assignments. The primary outcome variable was level of pain severity during jaw movements at the last assessment (90 days), and the key comparison of interest was change in pain over time (pain levels at baseline and at 90 days). Level of pain was measured using a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with MF/TMJP were recruited into the study. Random assignment allocated 27 patients to the intervention group, and 24 to the control group. Differences in pain severity in favor of the intervention group appeared immediately after the intervention, persisted for 45 days, and increased after the second intervention. Differences at last follow-up were highly clinically and statistically significant (4 to 5 points on the VAS, P = .000), allowing for patients in the intervention group to cease drug treatment (P = .005). There were no differences in the evolution of crepitus or clicking in the joint. There were no clinically relevant side effects associated with the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: For patients in whom conservative treatment has failed, NRT improves the chronic pain associated with MF/TMJP syndrome.