Enhanced pain facilitation rather than impaired pain inhibition in burning mouth syndrome female patients.

BACKGROUND: Deficient endogenous pain modulation has been implicated in the development and exacerbation of chronic orofacial pain. To date, relatively little is known regarding the function of the endogenous pain modulation in patients with burning mouth syndrome (BMS). This case-control study investigated endogenous pain modulation in women with BMS. METHODS: Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) was assessed upon temporal summation (TSP) of thermal pain. Forty female subjects, 20 BMS patients and 20 age-matched control subjects, were included in a 2 session-protocol. Mechanical and thermal pain thresholds were measured on the forearm and hand. TSP was obtained using repetitive laser-evoked thermal stimuli applied on the non-dominant hand, at an intensity yielding to moderate pain. During TSP, CPM was produced by immersing the contralateral foot in a water bath at painful cold (8 °C) temperature. In control conditions, the foot was immersed in a water bath at not painful (30 °C) temperature. RESULTS: BMS was not associated with any impairment in thermal as well as mechanical extracephalic pain thresholds. TSP and CPM efficacy were similar in BMS patients and control subjects. However, BMS patients exhibited enhanced extracephalic heat hyperalgesia. CONCLUSION: This study reveals that there is no impairment of endogenous pain inhibition mechanisms in BMS patients, but rather an increase in pain facilitation.

Towards a new taxonomy of idiopathic orofacial pain.

There is no current consensus on the taxonomy of the different forms of idiopathic orofacial pain (stomatodynia, atypical odontalgia, atypical facial pain, facial arthromyalgia), which are sometimes considered as separate entities and sometimes grouped together. In the present prospective multicentric study, we used a systematic approach to help to place these different painful syndromes in the general classification of chronic facial pain. This multicenter study was carried out on 245 consecutive patients presenting with chronic facial pain (>4 months duration). Each patient was seen by two experts who proposed a diagnosis, administered a 111-item questionnaire and filled out a standardized 68-item examination form. Statistical processing included univariate analysis and several forms of multidimensional analysis. Migraines (n=37), tension-type headache (n=26), post-traumatic neuralgia (n=20) and trigeminal neuralgia (n=13) tended to cluster independently. When signs and symptoms describing topographic features were not included in the list of variables, the idiopathic orofacial pain patients tended to cluster in a single group. Inside this large cluster, only stomatodynia (n=42) emerged as a distinct homogenous subgroup. In contrast, facial arthromyalgia (n=46) and an entity formed with atypical facial pain (n=25) and atypical odontalgia (n=13) could only be individualised by variables reflecting topographical characteristics. These data provide grounds for an evidence-based classification of idiopathic facial pain entities and indicate that the current sub-classification of these syndromes relies primarily on the topography of the symptoms.

Topical clonazepam in stomatodynia: a randomised placebo-controlled study.

Stomatodynia is characterised by a spontaneous burning pain in the oral mucosa without known cause or recognised treatment. The purpose of this double-blind, randomised, multicentre parallel group study was to evaluate the efficacy of the topical use of clonazepam. Forty-eight patients (4 men and 44 women, aged 65+/-2.1 years) were included, of whom 41 completed the study. The patients were instructed to suck a tablet of 1 mg of either clonazepam or placebo and hold their saliva near the pain sites in the mouth without swallowing for 3 min and then to spit. This protocol was repeated three times a day for 14 days. The intensity was evaluated by a 11-point numerical scale before the first administration and then after 14 days. Two weeks after the beginning of treatment, the decrease in pain scores was 2.4+/-0.6 and 0.6+/-0.4 in the clonazepam and placebo group, respectively (P = 0.014). Similar effects were obtained in an intent-to-treat analysis (P = 0.027). The blood concentration of clonazepam was similar whether it was measured 14 days after sucking a tablet three times a day or during the 5 h that followed sucking a single tablet (n = 5). It is hypothesised that clonazepam acts locally to disrupt the mechanism(s) underlying stomatodynia.

Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) for Clinical and Research Applications: recommendations of the International RDC/TMD Consortium Network* and Orofacial Pain Special Interest Group†.

AIMS: The original Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic algorithms have been demonstrated to be reliable. However, the Validation Project determined that the RDC/TMD Axis I validity was below the target sensitivity of ≥ 0.70 and specificity of ≥ 0.95. Consequently, these empirical results supported the development of revised RDC/TMD Axis I diagnostic algorithms that were subsequently demonstrated to be valid for the most common pain-related TMD and for one temporomandibular joint (TMJ) intra-articular disorder. The original RDC/TMD Axis II instruments were shown to be both reliable and valid. Working from these findings and revisions, two international consensus workshops were convened, from which recommendations were obtained for the finalization of new Axis I diagnostic algorithms and new Axis II instruments. METHODS: Through a series of workshops and symposia, a panel of clinical and basic science pain experts modified the revised RDC/TMD Axis I algorithms by using comprehensive searches of published TMD diagnostic literature followed by review and consensus via a formal structured process. The panel's recommendations for further revision of the Axis I diagnostic algorithms were assessed for validity by using the Validation Project's data set, and for reliability by using newly collected data from the ongoing TMJ Impact Project-the follow-up study to the Validation Project. New Axis II instruments were identified through a comprehensive search of the literature providing valid instruments that, relative to the RDC/TMD, are shorter in length, are available in the public domain, and currently are being used in medical settings. RESULTS: The newly recommended Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) Axis I protocol includes both a valid screener for detecting any pain-related TMD as well as valid diagnostic criteria for differentiating the most common pain-related TMD (sensitivity ≥ 0.86, specificity ≥ 0.98) and for one intra-articular disorder (sensitivity of 0.80 and specificity of 0.97). Diagnostic criteria for other common intra-articular disorders lack adequate validity for clinical diagnoses but can be used for screening purposes. Inter-examiner reliability for the clinical assessment associated with the validated DC/TMD criteria for pain-related TMD is excellent (kappa ≥ 0.85). Finally, a comprehensive classification system that includes both the common and less common TMD is also presented. The Axis II protocol retains selected original RDC/TMD screening instruments augmented with new instruments to assess jaw function as well as behavioral and additional psychosocial factors. The Axis II protocol is divided into screening and comprehensive self report instrument sets. The screening instruments' 41 questions assess pain intensity, pain-related disability, psychological distress, jaw functional limitations, and parafunctional behaviors, and a pain drawing is used to assess locations of pain. The comprehensive instruments, composed of 81 questions, assess in further detail jaw functional limitations and psychological distress as well as additional constructs of anxiety and presence of comorbid pain conditions. CONCLUSION: The recommended evidence-based new DC/TMD protocol is appropriate for use in both clinical and research settings. More comprehensive instruments augment short and simple screening instruments for Axis I and Axis II. These validated instruments allow for identification of patients with a range of simple to complex TMD presentations.