Painful temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and comorbidities in primary care: associations with pain-related disability.

Objective: We studied whether primary care temporomandibular disorder (TMD) patients reporting different levels of pain-related disability differ in terms of comorbid pains, general health conditions and quality of life.Material and methods: Consecutive TMD pain patients (n = 399) seeking treatment in primary care completed a questionnaire on comorbid pains and their interference and the Finnish version of the RAND-36-item quality of life questionnaire. Medical diagnoses confirmed by doctors were recorded. The patients were classified according to the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD). The patients were classified: no disability group (0 disability points), low disability group (1-2 disability points) and high disability group (3-6 disability points).Results: Compared to patients in the no-disability group, patients in the high- and low-disability groups reported more comorbid pain conditions (p < .001), and experienced these as more intense and interfering more with daily life (p < .05). Patients in the high-disability group reported more general health-related medical diagnoses than patients in the no-disability group (p < .05). Furthermore, patients with low or high pain-related disability indicated poorer quality of life in all RAND-36 subscales than those with no disability (p < .05).Conclusions: The findings suggest that GCPS-related disability scoring can be used as a simple screening instrument to identify TMD patients with different degrees of health burdens.

Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review.

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the evidence of possible benefits and accuracy of digital impression techniques vs. conventional impression techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Reports of digital impression techniques versus conventional impression techniques were systematically searched for in the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Web of Science. A combination of controlled vocabulary, free-text words, and well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria guided the search. RESULTS: Digital impression accuracy is at the same level as conventional impression methods in fabrication of crowns and short fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). For fabrication of implant-supported crowns and FDPs, digital impression accuracy is clinically acceptable. In full-arch impressions, conventional impression methods resulted in better accuracy compared to digital impressions. CONCLUSIONS: Digital impression techniques are a clinically acceptable alternative to conventional impression methods in fabrication of crowns and short FDPs. For fabrication of implant-supported crowns and FDPs, digital impression systems also result in clinically acceptable fit. Digital impression techniques are faster and can shorten the operation time. Based on this study, the conventional impression technique is still recommended for full-arch impressions.

Pain and pain behavior in burning mouth syndrome: a pain diary study.

AIMS: To characterize pain related to primary burning mouth syndrome (BMS) in terms of intensity, interference, and distress caused by the pain, as well as factors influencing the pain across a period of 2 weeks, and to study the use of coping and management strategies on a daily basis. METHODS: Fifty-two female patients with primary BMS completed a 2-week pain diary. Pain intensity, interference, distress, and mood on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale (NRS), as well as pain amplifying and alleviating factors, were recorded three times a day. The use of treatments (medication or other means) and coping strategies were recorded at the end of each day. Coefficient of variation, repeated measures analysis of variance, and correlative methods were used to assess the between- and within-subject variation, pain patterns, and associations between various pain scores. RESULTS: The overall mean pain intensity score of the 14 diary days was 3.1 (SD: 1.7); there was considerable variation in pain intensity between patients. Most patients experienced intermittent pain. On average, pain intensity increased from the morning to the evening. Intercorrelations between pain intensity, interference, distress, and mood were high, varying between rs = .75 and rs = .93 (P < .001). Pungent or hot food or beverages, stress, and tiredness were the most frequently mentioned pain-amplifying factors. The corresponding pain-alleviating factors were eating, sucking pastilles, drinking cold beverages, and relaxation. Thirty (58%) patients used pain medication and 35% reported using other means to alleviate their BMS pain. There was large variation in the use of coping strategies -between subjects. CONCLUSION: There were considerable differences in pain, in factors influencing the pain, and in pain behavior across BMS patients. This indicates that patient information and education as well as treatment of BMS pain should be individualized.

Efficacy and tolerability in patients with chronic facial pain of two consecutive treatment periods of rTMS applied over the facial motor cortex, using protocols differing in stimulation frequency, duration, and train pattern.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted an open-label cross-over study assessing the global effect of two high-frequency protocols of electric-field navigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeted to functional facial motor cortex and comparing their efficacy and tolerability in patients with chronic facial pain. Outcome predictors were also assessed. METHODS: We randomized twenty consecutive patients with chronic facial pain (post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain, n=14; persistent idiopathic facial pain, n=4; secondary trigeminal neuralgia, n=2) to receive two distinct 5-day rTMS interventions (10Hz, 2400 pulses and 20Hz, 3600 pulses) separated by six weeks. The target area was assessed by mapping of lower face representation. The primary endpoint was the change in weekly mean of pain intensity (numeric rating scale, NRS) between the baseline and therapy week (1st week), and follow-up weeks (2nd and 3rd weeks) for each rTMS intervention. Response was defined using a combination scale including the patient's global impression of change and continuance with maintenance treatment. RESULTS: Overall, pain intensity NRS decreased from 7.4 at baseline to 5.9 ten weeks later, after the second rTMS intervention (p=0.009). The repetition of the treatment had a significant effect (F=4.983, p=0.043) indicating that the NRS scores are lower during the second four weeks period. Eight (40%) patients were responders, 4 (20%) exhibited a modest effect, 4 (20%) displayed no effect, and 4 (20%) experienced worsening of pain. High disability and high pain intensity (>7) predicted a better outcome (p=0.043 and p=0.045). Female gender, shorter duration of pain and low Beck Anxiety Inventory scores showed a trend towards a better outcome (p=0.052, 0.060 and 0.055, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: High-frequency rTMS targeted to face M1 alleviates treatment resistant chronic facial pain. Repeated treatment improves the analgesic effect. A protocol with higher frequency (above 10Hz), longer session duration (more than 20 minutes) and higher number of pulses (above 2400 pulses/session) did not improve the outcome. The results support early consideration of rTMS.

Explanatory Models of Illness and Treatment Goals in Temporomandibular Disorder Pain Patients Reporting Different Levels of Pain-Related Disability.

AIMS: To explore whether temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain patients reporting different levels of pain-related disability differ in terms of illness explanations and treatment expectations. METHODS: Consecutive TMD pain patients (n = 399; mean ± SD age, 40.5 ± 12.7 years; 83% women) seeking treatment in primary care completed the Explanatory Model Scale (EMS). Patients were asked to indicate their expectations regarding the treatment. Each patient's pain-related disability level was determined using the Graded Chronic Pain Scale, with scores indicating no (0 disability points), low (1-2 disability points), or high (3-6 disability points) disability. Differences between EMS factor scores were evaluated using the Mann-Whitney U test. Differences between study groups were analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: High-disability patients considered physical and stress factors as more important in causing and in aggravating pain and as targets of treatment compared with patients with no disability (P = .0196 and P = .0251, respectively). The great majority of patients indicated they would like to receive information, decrease pain, and increase jaw function, with no significant subtype differences noted. Compared with no-disability patients, low-disability and high-disability patients were more likely to expect increased ability to perform daily functions (P < .0001 in both comparisons), increased work ability (P < .0001 in both comparisons), and better stress management skills (P = .0014 and P = .0001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Illness explanations and goals for treatment differ in patients reporting different levels of TMD pain-related disability.

Subtyping patients with temporomandibular disorders in a primary health care setting on the basis of the research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders axis II pain-related disability: a step toward tailored treatment planning?

AIMS: To use the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis II and additional pain-related and psychosocial variables to identify subtypes of TMD patients in a primary health care setting based on pain-related disability. METHODS: Consecutive TMD pain patients (n = 399) seeking treatment in a primary care setting completed a multidimensional pain questionnaire. Subtyping was based on the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS), and the patients were divided into a no-disability group (0 disability points), lowdisability group (1-2 disability points), and high-disability group (3-6 disability points). Psychosocial variables included RDC/TMD Axis II variables, anxiety, tension and stress, worry, catastrophizing, coping ability, general health, and other pain problems. Subtype differences were analyzed with t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, ANOVA, or Kruskal-Wallis test. A further analysis with multivariable logistic model was applied. All P values from pairwise comparisons were Bonferroni adjusted. RESULTS: Most (61%) of the patients belonged to the no-disability group, 27% to the low-disability group, and 12% to the high-disability group. When subtypes were compared, patients in the no-disability group appeared psychosocially well-functioning, with fewer symptoms related to psychosocial distress, better ability to control pain, and fewer jaw functional limitations and other pain problems. Patients in the high-disability group reported the highest levels of symptoms of depression and somatization, sleep dysfunction, worry, and catastrophizing thoughts. The low-disability patients formed an intermediate group between the no-disability and high-disability groups. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that GCPS-related disability scoring can be used as a simple screening instrument in primary care settings to identify individuals with different, clinically relevant psychosocial subtypes.

Tailored treatments in temporomandibular disorders: where are we now? A systematic qualitative literature review.

AIMS: To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the evidence of possible benefits of tailored treatments for temporomandibular disorders (TMD) based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Reports of RCTs investigating treatments tailored to TMD patients' psychosocial characteristics were systematically searched for through March 2013 in the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Web of Science. The methodological quality of the RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. RESULTS: Seven reports met the inclusion criteria. In all studies a subgroup of TMD patients, mainly identified by multidimensional diagnostic systems such as the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD Axis II or Multidimensional Pain Inventory, were offered a treatment intervention hypothesized to be suitable for that particular patient group. The quality of the trials was compromised in all cases. Two studies focused on well-functioning TMD patients. In both studies, self-care gave results equal to or better than usual conservative TMD treatment. The treatments were targeted for patients with compromised psychosocial adaptation in five studies, and typically included a cognitive behavioral treatment component. In all trials the results supported the efficacy of tailored treatment, albeit in one trial only in the short-term. CONCLUSION: The identified studies offer cautious support to the notion that treatment targeted to different psychosocial subgroups of TMD pain patients may be beneficial.