International consensus on the most useful assessments used by physical therapists to evaluate patients with temporomandibular disorders: A Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify assessment tools used to evaluate patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) considered to be clinically most useful by a panel of international experts in TMD physical therapy (PT). METHODS: A Delphi survey method administered to a panel of international experts in TMD PT was conducted over three rounds from October 2017 to June 2018. The initial contact was made by email. Participation was voluntary. An e-survey, according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES), was posted using SurveyMonkey for each round. Percentages of responses were analysed for each question from each round of the Delphi survey administrations. RESULTS: Twenty-three experts (completion rate: 23/25) completed all three rounds of the survey for three clinical test categories: 1) questionnaires, 2) pain screening tools and 3) physical examination tests. The following was the consensus-based decision regarding the identification of the clinically most useful assessments. (1) Four of 9 questionnaires were identified: Jaw Functional Limitation (JFL-8), Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular disorders (TSK/TMD) and the neck disability index (NDI). (2) Three of 8 identified pain screening tests: visual analog scale (VAS), numeric pain rating scale (NRS) and pain during mandibular movements. (3) Eight of 18 identified physical examination tests: physiological temporomandibular joint (TMJ) movements, trigger point (TrP) palpation of the masticatory muscles, TrP palpation away from the masticatory system, accessory movements, articular palpation, noise detection during movement, manual screening of the cervical spine and the Neck Flexor Muscle Endurance Test. CONCLUSION: After three rounds in this Delphi survey, the results of the most used assessment tools by TMD PT experts were established. They proved to be founded on test construct, test psychometric properties (reliability/validity) and expert preference for test clusters. A concordance with the screening tools of the diagnostic criteria of TMD consortium was noted. Findings may be used to guide policymaking purposes and future diagnostic research.

Dry needling for management of pain in the upper quarter and craniofacial region.

Dry needling is a therapeutic intervention that has been growing in popularity. It is primarily used with patients that have pain of myofascial origin. This review provides background about dry needling, myofascial pain, and craniofacial pain. We summarize the evidence regarding the effectiveness of dry needling. For patients with upper quarter myofascial pain, a 2013 systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled studies reported that dry needling is effective in reducing pain (especially immediately after treatment) in patients with upper quarter pain. There have been fewer studies of patients with craniofacial pain and myofascial pain in other regions, but most of these studies report findings to suggest the dry needling may be helpful in reducing pain and improving other pain related variables such as the pain pressure threshold. More rigorous randomized controlled trials are clearly needed to more fully elucidate the effectiveness of dry needling.

Does mobilization of the upper cervical spine affect pain sensitivity and autonomic nervous system function in patients with cervico-craniofacial pain?: A randomized-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aims were to investigate the effects of anterior-posterior upper cervical mobilization (APUCM) on pain modulation in craniofacial and cervical regions and its influence on the sympathetic nervous system. METHODS: Thirty-two patients with cervico-craniofacial pain of myofascial origin were randomly allocated into experimental or placebo groups. Each patient received 3 treatments. Outcome measures included bilateral pressure pain thresholds assessed at craniofacial and cervical points preintervention, after the second intervention and after the final treatment. Pain intensity and sympathetic nervous system variables (skin conductance, breathing rate, heart rate, and skin temperature) were assessed before and immediately after each intervention. RESULTS: The pressure pain thresholds in the craniofacial and cervical regions significantly increased (P<0.001) and pain intensity significantly decreased (P<0.001) in the treatment group compared with placebo. APUCM also produced a sympathoexcitatory response demonstrated by a significant increase in skin conductance, breathing rate, and heart rate (P<0.001), but not in skin temperature (P=0.071), after application of the technique compared with placebo. DISCUSSION: This study provided preliminary evidence of a short-term hypoalgesic effect of APUCM on craniofacial and cervical regions of patients with cervico-craniofacial pain of myofascial origin, suggesting that APUCM may cause an immediate nociceptive modulation in the trigeminocervical complex. We also observed a sympathoexcitatory response, which could be related to the hypoalgesic effect induced by the technique, but this aspect should be confirmed in future studies.

The influence of cranio-cervical posture on maximal mouth opening and pressure pain threshold in patients with myofascial temporomandibular pain disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the influence of cranio-cervical posture on the maximal mouth opening (MMO) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) in patients with myofascial temporomandibular pain disorders. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 29 patients (19 females and 10 males) with myofascial temporomandibular pain disorders, aged 19 to 59 years participated in the study (mean years±SD; 34.69±10.83 y). MMO and the PPT (on the right side) of patients in neutral, retracted, and forward head postures were measured. A 1-way repeated measures analysis of variance followed by 3 pair-wise comparisons were used to determine differences. RESULTS: Comparisons indicated significant differences in PPT at 3 points within the trigeminal innervated musculature [masseter (M1 and M2) and anterior temporalis (T1)] among the 3 head postures [M1 (F=117.78; P<0.001), M2 (F=129.04; P<0.001), and T1 (F=195.44; P<0.001)]. There were also significant differences in MMO among the 3 head postures (F=208.06; P<0.001). The intrarater reliability on a given day-to-day basis was good with the interclass correlation coefficient ranging from 0.89 to 0.94 and 0.92 to 0.94 for PPT and MMO, respectively, among the different head postures. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study shows that the experimental induction of different cranio-cervical postures influences the MMO and PPT values of the temporomandibular joint and muscles of mastication that receive motor and sensory innervation by the trigeminal nerve. Our results provide data that supports the biomechanical relationship between the cranio-cervical region and the dynamics of the temporomandibular joint, as well as trigeminal nociceptive processing in different cranio-cervical postures.