PRIDASE 2024 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in endodontics: A consensus-based development.

Studies investigating the accuracy of diagnostic tests should provide data on how effectively they identify or exclude disease in order to inform clinicians responsible for managing patients. This consensus-based project was undertaken to develop reporting guidelines for authors submitting manuscripts, which describe studies that have evaluated the accuracy of diagnostic tests in endodontics. These guidelines are known as the Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Endodontics (PRIDASE) 2024 guidelines. A nine-member steering committee created an initial checklist by integrating and modifying items from the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 checklist and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, as well as adding a number of new items specific to the specialty of endodontics. Thereafter, the steering committee formed the PRIDASE Delphi Group (PDG) and the PRIDASE Online Meeting Group (POMG) in order to collect expert feedback on the preliminary draft checklist. Members of the Delphi group engaged in an online Delphi process to reach consensus on the clarity and suitability of the items in the checklist. The online meeting group then held an in-depth discussion on the online Delphi-generated items via the Zoom platform on 20 October 2023. According to the feedback obtained, the steering committee revised the PRIDASE checklist, which was then piloted by several authors when preparing manuscripts describing diagnostic accuracy studies in endodontics. Feedback from this process resulted in the final version of the PRIDASE 2024 checklist, which has 11 sections and 66 items. Authors are encouraged to use the PRIDASE 2024 guidelines when developing manuscripts on diagnostic accuracy in endodontics in order to improve the quality of reporting in this area. Editors of relevant journals will be invited to include these guidelines in their instructions to authors.

A critical look at outcome measures: Comparison between four dental research journals by use of a hierarchical model.

AIM: To assess the status quo of outcome measures used in treatment studies in Endodontics, and potentially identify strategies for improvement, by (i) systematically assessing the outcome measures using a conceptual model and (ii) comparing these with measures used in corresponding studies in the adjacent fields. METHODOLOGY: The International Endodontic Journal, Caries Research, The Journal of Clinical Periodontology and The Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache were selected to cover four adjacent dental disciplines. In each journal, the 50 most recent consecutive publications fulfilling inclusion criteria were included. A hierarchical model for diagnostic imaging studies was modified to assess studies related to treatment. The model comprised six levels, with technical as the lowest level and societal as the highest. Extracted data included study origin, study type, and identified outcome measures. Fisher's Exact Tests with Bonferroni corrections compared studies. p < .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Amongst 756 publications, the 200 most recent studies matching the inclusion criteria were identified. Less than half (36.5%) assessed the clinical, patient, or societal aspects of treatment; 10.0% in International Endodontic Journal, 28.0% in Caries Research, 38.0% in Journal of Clinical Periodontology, and 70.0% in Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: According to included publications, research on treatment within the endodontic field is mainly focusing on technical and biological outcomes. The benefits of patients and society were less frequently examined than in corresponding journals in adjacent disciplines. When designing studies, including higher-level outcomes should be considered.

Multivariable prediction models of caries increment: a systematic review and critical appraisal.

BACKGROUND: Multivariable prediction models are used in oral health care to identify individuals with an increased likelihood of caries increment. The outcomes of the models should help to manage individualized interventions and to determine the periodicity of service. The objective was to review and critically appraise studies of multivariable prediction models of caries increment. METHODS: Longitudinal studies that developed or validated prediction models of caries and expressed caries increment as a function of at least three predictors were included. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science supplemented with reference lists of included studies were searched. Two reviewers independently extracted data using CHARMS (Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies) and assessed risk of bias and concern regarding applicability using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASessment Tool). Predictors were analysed and model performance was recalculated as estimated positive (LR +) and negative likelihood ratios (LR -) based on sensitivity and specificity presented in the studies included. RESULTS: Among the 765 reports identified, 21 studies providing 66 prediction models fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Over 150 candidate predictors were considered, and 31 predictors remained in studies of final developmental models: caries experience, mutans streptococci in saliva, fluoride supplements, and visible dental plaque being the most common predictors. Predictive performances varied, providing LR + and LR - ranges of 0.78-10.3 and 0.0-1.1, respectively. Only four models of coronal caries and one root caries model scored LR + values of at least 5. All studies were assessed as having high risk of bias, generally due to insufficient number of outcomes in relation to candidate predictors and considerable uncertainty regarding predictor thresholds and measurements. Concern regarding applicability was low overall. CONCLUSIONS: The review calls attention to several methodological deficiencies and the significant heterogeneity observed across the studies ruled out meta-analyses. Flawed or distorted study estimates lead to uncertainty about the prediction, which limits the models' usefulness in clinical decision-making. The modest performance of most models implies that alternative predictors should be considered, such as bacteria with acid tolerant properties. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD#152,467 April 28, 2020.

Orofacial pain for clinicians: A review of constant and attack-like facial pain syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Primary headache syndromes such as migraine are among the most common neurological syndromes. Chronic facial pain syndromes of non-odontogenic cause are less well known to neurologists despite being highly disabling. Given the pain localization, these patients often consult dentists first who may conduct unnecessary dental interventions even if a dental cause is not identified. Once it becomes clear that dental modalities have no effect on the pain, patients may be referred to another dentist or orofacial pain specialist, and later to a neurologist. Unfortunately, neurologists are also often not familiar with chronic orofacial pain syndromes although they share the neural system, i.e., trigeminal nerve and central processing areas for headache disorders. CONCLUSION: In essence, three broad groups of orofacial pain patients are important for clinicians: (i) Attack-like orofacial pain conditions, which encompass neuralgias of the cranial nerves and less well-known facial variants of primary headache syndromes; (ii) persistent orofacial pain disorders, including neuropathic pain and persistent idiopathic facial/dentoalveolar pain; and (iii) other differential diagnostically relevant orofacial pain conditions encountered by clinicians such as painful temporomandibular disorders, bruxism, sinus pain, dental pain, and others which may interfere (trigger) and overlap with headache. It is rewarding to know and recognize the clinical picture of these facial pain syndromes, given that, just like for headache, an internationally accepted classification system has been published and many of these syndromes can be treated with medications generally used by neurologists for other pain syndromes.

PROBE 2023 guidelines for reporting observational studies in endodontics: Explanation and elaboration.

Observational studies play a critical role in evaluating the prevalence and incidence of conditions or diseases in populations as well as in defining the benefits and potential hazards of health-related interventions. There are currently no reporting guidelines for observational studies in the field of Endodontics. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) team has developed and published new reporting guidelines for observational-based studies called the 'Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE) 2023' guidelines. The PROBE 2023 guidelines were developed exclusively for the speciality of Endodontics by integrating and adapting the 'STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)' checklist and the 'Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP)' principles. The recommendations of the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines were adhered to throughout the process of developing the guidelines. The purpose of this document is to serve as a guide for authors by providing an explanation for each of the items in the PROBE 2023 checklist along with relevant examples from the literature. The document also offers advice to authors on how they can address each item in their manuscript before submission to a journal. The PROBE 2023 checklist is freely accessible and downloadable from the PRIDE website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/probe/).

Nocebo response in dentistry: A systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events in analgesic trials of third molar removal.

BACKGROUND: The nocebo response refers to the phenomenon where non-specific factors, including negative verbal suggestion and treatment expectations, cause adverse events (AE) following a placebo treatment. Non-specific factors are also likely to influence AE occurrence following administration of active pharmacological treatments. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the nocebo response in dentistry by assessing the AEs prevalence in placebo- and active arms of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing analgesic treatment following third molar (M3) surgery. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies had to report the number of patients experiencing at least one drug-related AE (patients with AE ≥ 1) separately for the active and placebo arms. The proportion of patients with AE ≥ 1 and drug-related dropouts were pooled, and risk differences (RDs) between patients in the placebo- and active arm were calculated. RESULTS: In 50 independent RCTs of 47 identified articles, the pooled rates of patients with AE ≥ 1 were 22.8% in the placebo arm and 20.6% in the active arm. The pooled rates of drug-related dropout were 0.24% in the placebo arm and 0.08% in the active arm. There were no significant RDs in patients with AE ≥ 1 and drug-related dropouts. CONCLUSION: These results show that patients in the placebo arm reported AEs to the same extent as patients receiving active treatment, suggesting that most AEs in analgesic medication following M3 surgery may be attributed to the nocebo phenomenon.

PROBE 2023 guidelines for reporting observational studies in Endodontics: A consensus-based development study.

Observational studies are non-interventional studies that establish the prevalence and incidence of conditions or diseases in populations or analyse the relationship between health status and other variables. They also facilitate the development of specific research questions for future randomized trials or to answer important scientific questions when trials are not possible to carry out. This article outlines the previously documented consensus-based approach by which the Preferred Reporting items for Observational studies in Endodontics (PROBE) 2023 guidelines were developed. A steering committee of nine members was formed, including the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee developed an initial checklist by combining and adapting items from the STrengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, as well as adding several new items specifically for the specialty of Endodontics. The steering committee then established a PROBE Delphi Group (PDG) and a PROBE Online Meeting Group (POMG) to obtain expert input and feedback on the preliminary draft checklist. The PDG members participated in an online Delphi process to reach consensus on the clarity and suitability of the items present in the PROBE checklist. The POMG then held detailed discussions on the PROBE checklist generated through the online Delphi process. This online meeting was held via the Zoom platform on 7th October 2022. Following this meeting, the steering committee revised the PROBE checklist, which was piloted by several authors when preparing a manuscript describing an observational study for publication. The PROBE 2023 checklist consists of 11 sections and 58 items. Authors are now encouraged to adopt the PROBE 2023 guidelines, which will improve the overall reporting quality of observational studies in Endodontics. The PROBE 2023 checklist is freely available and can be downloaded from the PRIDE website (https://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/probe/).

What is the nocebo effect and does it apply to dentistry?-A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the nocebo effect, a phenomenon characterised by suboptimal treatment efficacy, worsening of symptoms, or the occurrence of adverse events caused by an individual's negative treatment expectations, is growing across a multitude of medical fields. However, little attention has been paid to patients' negative expectations and the nocebo effect within dentistry. AIM: This review summarises essential evidence of the nocebo phenomenon especially in relation to pain and drug administration. Subsequently, an overview of the current evidence of the nocebo phenomenon in the dental field is presented. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed using keywords related to "nocebo," "placebo," "expectations," and "dentistry." In addition to the articles selected from the search, placebo/nocebo researchers and dental researchers added important references from their respective fields. RESULTS: Although research on the nocebo effect in dentistry is limited, available current evidence suggests that the factors, which is related to the nocebo effect are likely to play a role in dental practice. CONCLUSION: Preliminary evidence from the review warrants further investigation into the nocebo effect in dentistry. Finally, based on the general knowledge of the nocebo effect, the review indicates fruitful arrays of research into the nocebo effect in dentistry.

How do we and how should we deal with uncertainty in endodontics?

In many clinical cases a dentist may feel certain when for example diagnosing, deciding on treatment, or assessing the prognosis-in other cases many dentists may feel a degree of doubt or uncertainty. This paper aims to explore the philosophical concept of uncertainty and its different dimensions, using the condition "persistent apical periodontitis associated with a previously root filled tooth" as an example. Acknowledging that uncertainty exists in any clinical situation can be perceived as uncomfortable, as some might regard it as a weakness. Whilst some types of uncertainty met in dental practice can be addressed and reduced, there are other types which are inevitable and must be accepted. To make sound decisions, it is pertinent that the dentist reflects on and values the consequences of uncertainty. In this paper, a conceptual model is presented by which the dentist can identify the type of uncertainty in a clinical case, making it possible to decide on a strategy on how to manage the uncertainty and its possible consequences, with the aim to support the dentist's care for their patients. The understanding that uncertainty exists and the ability to acknowledge and be comfortable with it when making decisions should be addressed throughout our professional career, and thus ought to be developed during undergraduate education. Some suggestions on how teachers could target this are given in the paper.

New International Classification of Orofacial Pain: What Is in It For Endodontists?

Pain is a common symptom in endodontic conditions, but differential diagnostic procedures are often needed to exclude other pain origins. Thus, general dentists and endodontists need to be aware of alternative painful orofacial conditions and be able to identify them. The new International Classification of Orofacial Pain (ICOP) is the first comprehensive classification that uniquely deals with orofacial pain. The ICOP is a hierarchical classification modeled on the International Classification of Headache Disorders and covers pain in dentoalveolar and anatomically related tissues, muscle pain, temporomandibular joint pain, neuropathic pain affecting cranial nerves, pain resembling primary headaches, and idiopathic pain in the orofacial region. A description of each condition is given, and structured diagnostic criteria for each condition are proposed based on research data when available. This narrative review aims (1) to give an overview and brief explanation of the ICOP system, (2) to describe and give examples of how it can be of use to general dentists and endodontists with special attention to differential diagnosis of tooth pain, and (3) to highlight how endodontic research can contribute to validation and improvement of the classification. A comparison to other classification and diagnostic systems is also included.

Assessment of Somatosensory and Psychosocial Function of Patients With Trigeminal Nerve Damage.

OBJECTIVE: The present study assessed somatosensory changes related to trigeminal nerve damage using extensive evaluation tools and assessed the effect of such damage on the patients' psychosocial status and quality of life compared with healthy participants. METHODS: In 37 patients with intraorally or extraorally presenting trigeminal nerve damage diagnosed as painful or nonpainful posttraumatic trigeminal neuropathy, psychophysical tests like quantitative sensory testing (QST) and qualitative sensory testing and the electrophysiological "nociceptive-specific" blink reflex were performed. The patients and 20 healthy participants completed a set of questionnaires assessing their psychosocial status and quality of life. RESULTS: A loss or gain of somatosensory function was seen in at least 1 QST parameter in >88.9% of the patients. Patients in whom extraoral QST was performed showed an overall loss of somatosensory function, whereas intraoral QST showed a general gain of somatosensory function. Qualitative sensory testing identified a side-to-side difference in the tactile and pinprick stimulation in >77% of the patients. An abnormal "nociceptive-specific" blink reflex response was seen in 42.1% to 71.4% of patients dependent on the trigeminal branch stimulated, though comparisons with healthy reference values showed ambiguous results. Compared with the healthy participants, patients showed higher scores for pain catastrophizing, symptoms of depression and anxiety, limited jaw function, more somatic symptoms, and significantly impaired oral health-related quality of life (all P<0.038). DISCUSSION: The results from the present study showed presence of varied somatosensory abnormalities when assessed using psychophysical and electrophysiological investigations and a significantly impaired psychosocial status.

Assessment of Somatosensory Function, Pain, and Unpleasantness in Two Surrogate Models of Trigeminal Nerve Damage: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Crossover Study.

AIMS: To assess the pain and/or unpleasantness and the somatosensory changes caused by two experimental models of trigeminal nerve damage (topical application of capsaicin and local anesthetics) in healthy participants using extensive evaluation tools. METHODS: This double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study included 20 healthy adult participants who underwent three separate sessions of testing. In each session, the psychophysical quantitative sensory testing (QST) and the electrophysiologic electrically evoked trigeminal "nociceptive-specific" blink reflex (nBR) investigations were performed at baseline. Following a 15-minute topical application of 0.1% capsaicin, 5% EMLA, or Vaseline (placebo) agents, the maximum numeric rating scale pain and unpleasantness scores were recorded. Additionally, qualitative sensory testing and somatosensory mapping were performed. The QST and nBR investigations were repeated immediately after each application. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Capsaicin application was associated with significantly higher pain and unpleasantness scores when compared to EMLA and Vaseline (P < .001), with varied bidirectional somatosensory changes among the participants and significant loss of thermosensory function (P < .030). EMLA application induced loss of thermal and mechanical somatosensory function (P < .030) and a significant reduction in electrically evoked pain scores on nBR investigation (P < .001). No significant changes were seen in the electrophysiologic component of the nBR after any of the applications (P = .922). CONCLUSION: Topical capsaicin and EMLA application mimicked certain aspects of somatosensory changes seen in trigeminal nerve damage patients and may be used as surrogate models of such changes.

Feasibility and reliability of intraorally evoked "nociceptive-specific" blink reflexes.

OBJECTIVES: The "nociceptive-specific" blink reflex (nBR) evoked by extraoral stimulation has been used to assess trigeminal nociceptive processing in patients with trigeminal nerve damage regardless of the site of damage. This study aimed to test the feasibility of nBR elicited by intraoral stimulation, compare intraoral and extraoral nBR and assess the intrarater and interrater reliability of the intraoral nBR for the maxillary (V2) and mandibular (V3) branches of the trigeminal nerve. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 17 healthy participants, nBR was elicited by stimulation of two extraoral and two intraoral sites by two operators and repeated intraorally by one operator. Main outcome variables were intraoral stimulus-evoked pain scores and nBR R2 responses at different stimulus intensities. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess reliability. RESULTS: Dependent on the stimulus intensity, intraoral stimulation evoked R2 responses in up to 12/17 (70.6%) participants for V2 and up to 8/17 (47.1%) participants for V3. Pain scores (p < 0.003) and R2 responses (p < 0.004) increased with increasing intensities for V2, but not V3. The R2 responses were significantly smaller with intraoral stimulation compared to extraoral stimulation (p < 0.014). Overall, ICCs were fair to excellent for V2 but poor for V3. CONCLUSION: Intraorally evoked nBR was feasible in a subset of healthy participants and was less responsive than nBR with extraoral stimulation. The V2 nBR showed better reliability than V3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The nBR can be used to assess nerve damage to the maxillary intraoral regions, though other measures may need to be considered for the mandibular intraoral regions.

Demographic factors in the choice of coronal restoration after root canal treatment in the Swedish adult population.

BACKGROUND: After root canal treatment, a choice is made between different coronal restorations which in the long run could affect the survival of the tooth. OBJECTIVE: To compare demographic characteristics between individuals choosing an indirect coronal restoration (crown, inlay/onlay) and individuals choosing other restorations after completion of a root filling. METHODS: The cohort consisted of all root-filled upper first molars that were reported to the tax-funded Swedish Social Insurance Agency (SSIA) during 2009. After registration of the root filling, any subsequent coronal restorations within 2 years were identified. The crown group consisted of individuals registered with an indirect coronal restoration and the restoration group was the remaining individuals with a direct coronal restoration or lacking registration. Demographic data (gender, disposable income, age, educational level, civil status and country of birth) were received from Statistics Sweden or the SSIA. Statistical analyses included chi-square test, t test and logistic regression analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: An indirect coronal restoration was received by 7806 individuals (21.9%), and 27 886 individuals (78.1%) received a direct restoration. All demographic variables except gender differed significantly between groups. Logistic regression analysis found significant associations for all demographic variables and the registration of an indirect restoration except for country of birth and gender. CONCLUSIONS: The identified demographic differences between individuals choosing to restore their newly root-filled teeth with an indirect restoration compared to those receiving other restorations may indicate that the tax-funded Swedish dental insurance fails to provide dental care on equal terms for Swedish citizens.

Assessment of Mechanical Pain Thresholds in the Orofacial Region: A Comparison Between Pinprick Stimulators and Electronic Von Frey Device.

AIMS: To compare mechanical pain thresholds (MPTs) in the orofacial region assessed with two different approaches: with an electronic von Frey (EvF) device and with custom-made weighted pinprick stimulators. The test-retest reliability, variability of MPTs, and time duration of each test were also compared, as well as the ability of each test to create stimulus-response (S-R) curves. METHODS: A total of 16 healthy volunteers participated. The MPT and S-R curve measurements were done with the two different techniques at three sites: on the skin of the right cheek (face), on the buccal gingival mucosa of the right upper premolar region (gingiva), and on the tip of the tongue (tongue). The same protocol was repeated 1 to 2 weeks later to determine test-retest reliability. RESULTS: The MPT measurements with the EvF device were significantly faster (74.4 ± 20.8 seconds) than those with the pinprick stimulators (196.1 ± 33.0 seconds; P < .001). The absolute MPT values obtained with the EvF device were significantly higher than the values obtained with the pinprick stimulators at all test sites (P < .001). MPTs assessed with the EvF device showed higher reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.77-0.94) than MPTs assessed with the pinprick stimulators (ICC = 0.57-0.84; P = .041). The reliability of the S-R curves was excellent for both methods with no significant differences between the methods (P = .403). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that MPTs tested in the orofacial region with the EvF device were significantly higher than MPTs tested with the pinprick stimulators. However, the EvF device can be used with higher reliability and less time consumption for assessment of MPTs in the orofacial region than the pinprick stimulator technique, and also allows comparable construction of S-R curves.

Validity of Preoperative Clinical Findings to Identify Dental Pulp Status: A National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Study.

INTRODUCTION: Endodontic diagnostic tests are often used clinically to assess pulp status as a basis for the diagnosis and determination of whether root canal treatment (RCT) is indicated. Response to cold and pain on percussion are 2 common tests, yet their validity in identifying nonvital pulp in regular dental practice has not been reported. METHODS: We assessed the validity of cold and percussion tests to identify nonvital pulp in teeth requiring RCT in a dental practice setting performed by 46 general dentists and 16 endodontists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. The influence of patient-, tooth-, and dentist-related characteristics was investigated. Observed bleeding from the pulp chamber was the clinical reference. Sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), overall test accuracy (TA), positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values, and likelihood and diagnostic odds ratios (LR+, LR-, dORs) were calculated for each single test and the combined cold and percussion tests. RESULTS: Seven hundred eight patient teeth were included. Cold test showed high validity to identify a nonvital pulp status (SN = 89%, SP = 80%, TA = 84%, PPV = 81%, NPV = 88%, LR+ = 4.35, LR- = 0.14, dOR = 31.4), whereas pain on percussion had lower validity (SN = 72%, SP = 41%, TA = 56%, PPV = 54%, NPV = 60%, LR+ = 1.22, LR- = 0.69, dOR = 1.78). Combining the 2 tests did not increase validity, whereas preoperative pain, medication intake, patient age and sex, and dentist training level affected test validity significantly. CONCLUSIONS: In regular dental practice, the cold test exhibits higher validity to discriminate between vital and nonvital pulp than the tooth percussion test.

A new protocol to evaluate the effect of topical anesthesia.

This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized cross-over clinical experimental study tested the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of punctuate pain thresholds and self-reported pain on needle penetration. Female subjects without orofacial pain were tested in 2 sessions at 1- to 2-week intervals. The test site was the mucobuccal fold adjacent to the first upper right premolar. Active lidocaine hydrochloride 2% (Dynexan) or placebo gel was applied for 5 minutes, and sensory testing was performed before and after application. The standardized quantitative sensory test protocol included mechanical pain threshold (MPT), pressure pain threshold (PPT), mechanical pain sensitivity (MPS), and needle penetration sensitivity (NPS) assessments. Twenty-nine subjects, mean (SD) age 29.0 (10.2) years, completed the study. Test-retest reliability intraclass correlation coefficient at 10-minute intervals between examinations was MPT 0.69, PPT 0.79, MPS 0.72, and NPS 0.86. A high correlation was found between NPS and MPS (r = 0.84; P < .001), whereas NPS and PPT were not significantly correlated. The study found good to excellent test-retest reliability for all measures. None of the sensory measures detected changes in sensitivity following lidocaine 2% or placebo gel. Electronic von Frey assessments of MPT/MPS on oral mucosa have good validity.

A comparative analysis of magnetic resonance imaging and radiographic examinations of patients with atypical odontalgia.

AIMS: To examine (1) the occurrence of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) signal changes in the painful regions of patients with atypical odontalgia (AO) and (2) the correlation of such findings to periapical bone defects detected with a comprehensive radiographic examination including cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS: A total of 20 patients (mean age 52 years, range 34 to 65) diagnosed with AO participated. Mean pain intensity (± standard deviation) was 5.6 ± 1.8 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale, and mean pain duration was 4.3 ± 5.2 years. The inclusion criterion was chronic pain (> 6 months) located in a region with no clear pathologic cause identified clinically or in periapical radiographs. In addition to a clinical examination and a self-report questionnaire, the assessments included radiographic examinations (panoramic, periapical, and CBCT images), and an MRI examination. Changes in MRI signal in the painful region were recorded. Spearman's rank correlation between radiographic and MRI findings was calculated. RESULTS: Eight of the patients (40%) had MRI signal changes in the pain region. The correlation to radiographic periapical radiolucencies was 0.526 (P = .003). Of the eight teeth displaying changes in MRI signal, six showed periapical radiolucency in the radiographs. CONCLUSION: MRI examination revealed no changes in the painful region in a majority of patients with AO, suggesting that inflammation was not present. MRI findings were significantly correlated to radiographic findings.

Intraoral somatosensory abnormalities in patients with atypical odontalgia--a controlled multicenter quantitative sensory testing study.

Intraoral somatosensory sensitivity in patients with atypical odontalgia (AO) has not been investigated systematically according to the most recent guidelines. The aims of this study were to examine intraoral somatosensory disturbances in AO patients using healthy subjects as reference, and to evaluate the percent agreement between intraoral quantitative sensory testing (QST) and qualitative sensory testing (QualST). Forty-seven AO patients and 69 healthy control subjects were included at Universities of Washington, Malmö, and Aarhus. In AO patients, intraoral somatosensory testing was performed on the painful site, the corresponding contralateral site, and at thenar. In healthy subjects, intraoral somatosensory testing was performed bilaterally on the upper premolar gingiva and at thenar. Thirteen QST and 3 QualST parameters were evaluated at each site, z-scores were computed for AO patients based on the healthy reference material, and LossGain scores were created. Compared with control subjects, 87.3% of AO patients had QST abnormalities. The most frequent somatosensory abnormalities in AO patients were somatosensory gain with regard to painful mechanical and cold stimuli and somatosensory loss with regard to cold detection and mechanical detection. The most frequent LossGain code was L0G2 (no somatosensory loss with gain of mechanical somatosensory function) (31.9% of AO patients). Percent agreement between corresponding QST and QualST measures of thermal and mechanical sensitivity ranged between 55.6% and 70.4% in AO patients and between 71.1% and 92.1% in control subjects. In conclusion, intraoral somatosensory abnormalities were commonly detected in AO patients, and agreement between quantitative and qualitative sensory testing was good to excellent.