Hypnosis on acute dental and maxillofacial pain relief: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: The effects of hypnosis on acute pain have been discussed recently, resulting in increased attention in the dental/maxillofacial field offering new perspectives, especially in emergency situations, trauma, or acute inflammatory situations where conventional pharmaceuticals are contraindicated due to allergies or intolerance reactions. DATA: To systematically evaluate and assess the effects of hypnosis on acute dental/facial pain relief. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, controlled clinical trials, cross-sectional studies, evaluation, and validation studies, following the PRISMA guidelines, of human subjects of all ages were included. SOURCES: Five electronic databases (Cochrane, Embase, MEDLINE via PubMed, LILACS, Scopus) were screened for studies published between 1989 - 2021. A NIH quality-assessment-tool was performed. STUDY SELECTION/RESULTS: 27 papers have been included and a meta-analysis was performed. Hypnosis has been reported to reduce intraoperative and postoperative pain as well as the use of analgesics in various dental procedures such as tooth extraction. Highly hypnotizable subjects generally respond better to hypnosis. Different hypnosis techniques were used for pain relief and relaxation. The studies show a large heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Although there are only a small number of studies on the subject so far, evidence can be confirmed for the effects of hypnosis on acute pain relief in dental/maxillofacial area. Despite the promising results, further research is needed. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Hypnosis offers a possible alternative to conventional pain medications for acute dental and maxillofacial pain, especially in cases of allergies or contraindications; it can be easily applied by a trained practitioner.

Studies in patients with temporomandibular disorders pain: Can scales of hypnotic susceptibility predict the outcome on pain relief?

Many medical conditions are claimed to benefit when hypnosis is incorporated into their treatment. For some conditions, the claims are largely anecdotal, but the treatment of pain stands out in two ways. First, there is a strong body of evidence that hypnosis can produce clinically useful analgesic effects. Second, since innocuous pain can be induced in the laboratory, the process can be explored rigorously. This idea assumes that experimentally induced pain and clinical pain behave identically. We describe using experimentally induced pain in patients already suffering from temporomandibular disorders. Scanning results indicate that the pain and its amelioration are the same in the two circumstances. Moreover, the absence of any impact upon a nociceptive trigemino-facial reflex implies that the impact of hypnosis is purely cortical. Finally, we address the observation that clinical success correlates poorly with hypnotic susceptibility scores. It is proposed that a painful experimental situation induces anxiety. This, like hypnosis, has been associated with an emphasis on right hemisphere activity. Thus, clinical anxiety may render a person more responsive to hypnosis than would be indicated by a susceptibility test delivered in stress-free circumstances.

A pilot-study of hypnotherapy as complementary treatment for pain in chronic pancreatitis.

BackgroundChronic pain is the hallmark symptom of chronic pancreatitis (CP). Its treatment is complicated, and often the patients have side-effects notwithstanding that pain is not ameliorated in many cases. Hypnotherapy has been shown to improve symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome including abdominal pain and, as such, may serve as a remedy to relive pain. The aim of this open-label pilot-study was to test the effect of hypnotherapy for pain in patients with CP. MethodsFour patients with CP and chronic abdominal pain were included and followed for four consecutive weeks. The primary efficacy parameter was pain relief. After 1 week of baseline patients received a 1-h session of hypnotherapy. This was repeated at day 15 and day 23 and supplemented by self-administered hypnotherapy. ResultsThree of four participants completed the trial and experienced short lasting pain reduction during the trial. The reported pain relief was in the range of 20%-39% compared to baseline. Hypnotherapy improved self-reported sleep, vitality, and social life. ConclusionsThe results suggest that hypnotherapy may reduce pain related to CP. Furthermore, no adverse effects were reported and the majority of participants completed the trial. Further prospective controlled trials are warranted to examine the potential of hypnotherapy.

Somatosensory sensitivity in patients with persistent idiopathic orofacial pain is associated with pain relief from hypnosis and relaxation.

OBJECTIVES: In a recent study hypnosis has been found to relieve persistent idiopathic orofacial pain. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is widely used to evaluate somatosensory sensitivity, which has been suggested as a possible predictor of management outcome. The objectives of this study were to examine: (1) possible associations between clinical pain relief and baseline somatosensory sensitivity and (2) the effect of hypnosis management on QST parameters. METHODS: Forty-one patients with persistent idiopathic orofacial pain completed this randomized controlled study in 1 of 2 groups: hypnosis (hypnotic analgesia suggestions) or control (relaxation). QST at 2 intraoral (pain region and contralateral mirror image region) and 3 extraoral (hand and both cheeks) sites was performed at baseline and after the hypnosis/control management, together with pressure pain thresholds and pressure pain tolerance thresholds determined bilaterally at the masseter and temporalis muscles, the temporomandibular joints, and the third finger. RESULTS: Degree of pain relief was negatively correlated with a summary statistic of baseline somatosensory sensitivity (summed z-score), that is, high baseline somatosensory sensitivity was associated with low pain relief (r=-0.372, P=0.020). Hypnosis had no major effect on any QST measure compared with relaxation (P>0.063). CONCLUSIONS: High pain sensitivity at baseline may predict poor pain management outcome. In addition, despite clear clinical pain relief, hypnosis did not significantly or specifically influence somatosensory sensitivity. Future studies should further explore QST measures as possible predictors of different management response in orofacial pain conditions.

Visualization and attentive behavior for pain reduction during radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency (RF) ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) can be accompanied by pain and anxiety when light conscious sedation is used. We sought to determine how visualization and structured attentive behavior during ablation of AF could reduce pain intensity, spontaneously expressed pain, the amount of analgesics, anxiety, and adverse events. METHODS: A clinical controlled study with 71 patients in a control group (CG), receiving conventional care and treatment, and 76 patients in an intervention group (IG), receiving relaxation and visualization, combined with a structured attentive behavior from staff. RESULTS: There was no difference between CG and IG in perception of pain intensity at 15-minute intervals; mean pain intensity: CG (0.00-2.90), IG (0.12-2.57), (NS), but patients spontaneously expressed pain less numbers of time outside fixed intervals in the IG: 1.4 ± 1.2 times (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) compared to CG: 2.8 ± 1.8 (P < 0.01). There was a statistically significant difference between the amount of analgesics (Fentanyl) used in the two groups: CG: 292.3 ± 107 µg (mean ± SD) and IG: 220.7 ± 93 µg (P < 0.0001). No effect was observed in perception of anxiety, mean anxiety: CG (0.10-1.84), IG (0.9-2.03)(NS), and the number of adverse events (P = 0.241). CONCLUSION: Visualization and structured attentive behavior was shown to reduce the amount of analgesics during the RF ablation of AF. There was no difference in perception of pain intensity, but the patients spontaneously expressed pain significantly less numbers of times outside the scheduled measurements. There was no reduction in anxiety and numbers of adverse events.

Effect of hypnosis on pain and blink reflexes in patients with painful temporomandibular disorders.

OBJECTIVE: This study contrasted the effect of hypnosis on self-reported pain and changes in a nociceptive brainstem reflex, the blink reflex (BR), in 39 women with temporomandibular disorder. METHODS: The patients were randomized to hypnosis or control (nonhypnotic relaxation). Pain intensity was assessed 3 times daily on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale. BRs were elicited by electrical stimulation with a nociceptive-specific electrode and recorded before and after treatment at pain threshold (Ip) and supra threshold (2×Ip). RESULTS: Significant reduction of pain intensity was observed in the hypnosis group from 4.5±2.1 at baseline to 2.9±2.4 after treatment (P<0.001). The pain reduction was generally unrelated to changes in the BR, with the exception being a lowered ipsilateral R2 BR component at the right side supra threshold (P=0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Hypnosis thus seems to reduce complex temporomandibular disorder pain, most likely because of cortical changes with little, if any, involvement of brainstem reflex pathways.

Effect of hypnotic pain modulation on brain activity in patients with temporomandibular disorder pain.

Hypnosis modulates pain perception but the associated brain mechanisms in chronic pain conditions are poorly understood. Brain activity evoked by painful repetitive pin-prick stimulation of the left mental nerve region was investigated with use of fMRI in 19 patients with painful temporomandibular disorders (TMD) during hypnotic hypoalgesia and hyperalgesia and a control condition. Pain intensity and unpleasantness of the painful stimulation was scored on a 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). NRS pain and unpleasantness scores during hypnotic hypoalgesia were significantly lower than in the control condition and significantly higher in the hypnotic hyperalgesia condition. In the control condition, painful stimulation caused significant activation of right posterior insula, primary somatosensory cortex (SI), BA21, and BA6, and left BA40 and BA4. Painful stimulation during hypnotic hyperalgesia was associated with increased activity in right posterior insula and BA6 and left BA40 whereas hypnotic hypoalgesia only was associated with activity in right posterior insula. Unexpectedly, direct contrasts between control and hypnotic hyperalgesia conditions revealed significant decreases in S1 during hyperalgesia. Direct contrasts between control and hypnotic hypoalgesia conditions demonstrated significant decreases in right posterior insula and BA21, as well as left BA40 during hypoalgesia. These findings are the first to describe hypnotic modulation of brain activity associated with nociceptive processing in chronic TMD pain patients and demonstrate that hypnotic hypoalgesia is associated with a pronounced suppression of cortical activity and a disconnection between patient-based scores and cortical activity in S1 during hypnotic hyperalgesia.

Hypnosis in the management of persistent idiopathic orofacial pain--clinical and psychosocial findings.

This controlled and patient blinded study tested the effect of hypnosis on persistent idiopathic orofacial pain (PIOP) in terms of clinical and psychosocial findings. Forty-one PIOP were randomized to active hypnotic intervention or simple relaxation as control for five individual 1-h sessions. Primary outcome was average pain intensity scored three times daily in a pain diary using visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcome measures were pain quality assessed by McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), psychological symptoms assessed by symptom check list (SCL), quality of life assessed by SF36, sleep quality, and consumption of analgesic. Data were compared between groups before and after treatment using ANOVA models and paired t-tests. The change in VAS pain scores from baseline to the last treatment (t4) was (33.1+/-7.4%) in the hypnosis group and (3.2+/-5.4%) in the control group (P<0.03). In the hypnosis group, highly hypnotic susceptible patients had greater decreases in VAS pain scores (55.0+/-12.3%) when compared to less susceptible patients (17.9+/-6.7%) (P<0.02). After the last treatment there were also statistically significant differences between groups in perceived pain area (MPQ) and the use of weak analgesics (P<0.03). There were no statistically significant changes in SCL or SF36 scores from baseline to t4. In conclusion, hypnosis seems to offer clinically relevant pain relief in PIOP, particularly in highly susceptible patients. However, stress coping skills and unresolved psychological problems need to be included in a comprehensive management plan in order also to address psychological symptoms and quality of life.

A 3-year comparison of dental anxiety treatment outcomes: hypnosis, group therapy and individual desensitization vs. no specialist treatment.

Outcomes of hypnotherapy (HT), group therapy (GT) and individual systematic desensitization (SD) on extreme dental anxiety in adults aged 19-65 yr were compared by regular attendance behaviors, changes in dental anxiety and changes in beliefs about dentists and treatment after 3 yr. Treatment groups were comparable with a static reference control group of 65 anxious patients (Dental Anxiety Scale > or = 15) who were followed for a mean of nearly 6 yr. After 3 yr, 54.5% of HT patients, 69.6% of GT patients and 65.5% of SD patients were maintaining regular dental care habits. This was better than the 46.1% of the reference group, who reported going regularly to the dentist again within the cohort follow-up period, and 38.9% of a control subgroup with observation for 3 yr. Women were better regular attenders than men at 3 yr. Specialist-treated regular attenders were significantly less anxious and had more positive beliefs than regular attenders from reference groups. There were few differences between HT, GT and SD after 3 yr. It was concluded that many patients can, on their own, successfully start and maintain regular dental treatment habits with dentists despite years of avoidance associated with phobic or extreme anxiety. However, it also appears that these patients had less success in reducing dental anxiety and improving beliefs about dentists long-term than did patients who were treated at the specialist clinic with psychological strategies.