Clinical features of chronic primary pain in individuals presenting painful temporomandibular disorder and comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of chronic primary pain (CPP), according to the recently released International Classification of Disease (ICD-11) criteria, refers to conditions with complex aetiologies. CPP is characterized by specific clinical features such as generalized sensory hypersensitivity and widespread pain, and is associated with functional disability and emotional distress. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated clinical features of CPP in individuals with painful temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and comorbidities (fibromyalgia, migraine and/or tension-type headache). METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted with a sample of 129 individuals. Painful TMD, fibromyalgia and primary headaches were evaluated based on well-established international criteria. Generalized sensory hypersensitivity was assessed using psychophysical tests. Symptoms of anxiety and depression were assessed by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and Patient Health Questionnaire-9. The Central Sensitization Inventory was applied to assess central sensitization-related symptoms and the Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index to evaluate the quality of sleep. The presence of widespread pain was assessed using a body map. The sample was stratified into three groups: control (n = 25), TMD-painful TMD only (n = 35) and TMD + Cm-painful TMD and comorbidities (n = 69). Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA, chi-squared test and ANCOVA, considering gender as a covariate (α = .05). RESULTS: Compared to controls, individuals presenting painful TMD and comorbidities showed lower pressure pain thresholds in all evaluated areas (p ≤ .012) and a higher number of painful areas in the body (p = .001). They presented more symptoms of anxiety (p = .040) and depression (p = .018), and a higher score in the Central Sensitization Inventory (p ≤ .006) than the other groups. CONCLUSION: Individuals with painful TMD and comorbidities presented more clinical features of CPP compared to those affected by TMD only.

Topical anaesthesia degree is reduced in temporomandibular disorders patients: A novel approach to assess underlying mechanisms of the somatosensory alterations.

BACKGROUND: Changes in quantitative sensory testing (QST) parameters following topical anaesthesia could contribute to better elucidate underlying mechanisms of somatosensory alterations in temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain patients. This placebo-controlled crossover investigation compared the somatosensory profile following topical anaesthesia between TMD patients (n = 20) and healthy participants (n = 20). METHODS: Cold detection threshold, warm detection threshold, cold pain threshold, heat pain threshold, mechanical detection threshold, mechanical pain threshold, wind-up ratio and pressure pain threshold were assessed on the skin overlying the masseter at three consecutive days (baseline and immediately after lidocaine 4%/placebo cream). Mixed ANOVA and a coding system that accounts for the diversity of types of peripheral axons associated with the somatosensory parameters were applied for data analysis. RESULTS: The lidocaine application caused no changes in the somatosensory sensitivity in the masseter region in TMD patients (P > .050), but sensitivity to cold, cold pain, touch and pinprick stimuli were reduced after topical anaesthesia in healthy participants (P < .050). Also, the degree of topical anaesthesia was greater in healthy participants (P = .008). The coding system suggested that TMD patients presented only Aδ-fibre block, whereas a combination of either Aß- and/or C-fibre block was observed in 35% of healthy participants in addition to Aδ-fibre block following lidocaine application. CONCLUSION: Quantitative sensory testing can be successfully applied to identify meaningful differences in the degree of hypoalgesia and hypoesthesia following short-time topical anaesthesia.

Reliability of the nociceptive blink reflex evoked by electrical stimulation of the trigeminal nerve in humans.

OBJECTIVE: The nociceptive blink reflex (nBR) can be useful to investigate trigeminal nociceptive function. The aim of this study was to estimate the reliability of the nBR evoked by electrical stimulation of the three branches of the trigeminal nerve under the following conditions: over time (test-retest and intrarater reliability) and by two examiners (interrater reliability). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one healthy participants were evaluated in two sessions (24 h apart). The nBR was elicited by a so-called "nociceptive-specific" electrode placed over the entry zone of the right supraorbital (V1R), infraorbital (V2R), mental (V3R), and left infraorbital (V2L) nerve. The outcomes were individual electrical sensory (I 0) and pain thresholds (I P); root mean square (RMS), area-under-the-curve (AUC), and onset latencies of R2 responses (determined twice after a recalibration session); and stimulus-evoked pain on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Kappa statistics were computed (α = 5%). RESULTS: ICCs were fair to excellent in 82% of the psychophysical measures (fair 21%, good 31%, excellent 30%) and in 86% of V1R, V2R, and V2L nBR parameters, whereas 52% of V3R showed poor reliability. ICCs for intrarater reliability were fair to good in 70% of measurements (fair 20%, good 50%) and in 75% of interrater measurements after the recalibration (fair 55%, good 20%). All kappa values showed at least fair agreement and the majority of the nBR measures (93%) presented moderate to excellent reliability. CONCLUSION: The nBR and its associated psychophysical measures can be considered a sufficiently reliable test. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The nBR can be recommended as an electrophysiological technique to assess trigeminal nociceptive function.

Standardization of muscle palpation- methodological considerations.

OBJECTIVES: To compare test-retest variability of palpation between a new palpometer and manual palpation using (1) right or left hand, (2) index or middle finger, (3) randomized or fixed sequence of force levels, (4) palpation on soft or hard surface, and (5) palpation for 2 or 10 seconds. METHODS: Twelve clinicians were instructed to target 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 kg on a force meter using a palpometer (adjustable spring-coil with a small pin touching the examiner's hand when the correct pressure is achieved) and manual palpation with right or left hand, index or middle finger, randomized or fixed sequence of force levels, on hard or soft surface, and for 2 or 10 seconds. During all experiments, 10 force measures were taken and variability was determined as coefficient of variation (CV) and compared with analyses of variance. RESULTS: In all experiments, the palpometer had lower variability compared with manual palpation (P<0.001). There were no differences between the CVs of right and left hand (P=0.122), index and middle finger (P=0.240), and soft and hard surface (P=0.240). Random sequence of force levels had higher CVs than fixed sequence with manual palpation (P=0.004), but not with palpometer (P=0.856). CVs for 2 seconds palpation were higher than 10 seconds (P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The palpometer had low test-retest variability and provided a more accurate and reproducible pressure stimulus than manual palpation. The findings of this study may help to standardize palpation of human muscles required for accurate and reliable diagnosis of musculoskeletal pain conditions.