Intra-oral myofascial therapy versus education and self-care in the treatment of chronic, myogenous temporomandibular disorder: a randomised, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Myogenous temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are considered to be a common musculoskeletal condition. No studies exist comparing intra-oral myofascial therapies to education, self-care and exercise (ESC) for TMD. This study evaluated short-term differences in pain and mouth opening range between intra-oral myofascial therapy (IMT) and an ESC program. METHODS: Forty-six participants with chronic myogenous TMD (as assessed according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria Axis 1 procedure) were consecutively block randomised into either an IMT group or an ESC group. Each group received two sessions per week (for five weeks) of either IMT or short talks on the anatomy, physiology and biomechanics of the jaw plus instruction and supervision of self-care exercises. The sessions were conducted at the first author's jaw pain and chiropractic clinic in Sydney, Australia. Primary outcome measures included pain at rest, upon opening and clenching, using an eleven point ordinal self reported pain scale. A secondary outcome measure consisted of maximum voluntary opening range in millimetres. Data were analysed using linear models for means and logistic regression for responder analysis. RESULTS: After adjusting for baseline, the IMT group had significantly lower average pain for all primary outcomes at 6 weeks compared to the ESC group (p < 0.001). These differences were not clinically significant but the IMT group had significantly higher odds of a clinically significant change (p < 0.045). There was no significant difference in opening range between the IMT and ESC groups. Both groups achieved statistically significant decreases in all three pain measures at six weeks (p ≤ 0.05), but only the IMT group achieved clinically significant changes of 2 or more points. CONCLUSION: This study showed evidence of superiority of IMT compared to ESC over the short-term but not at clinically significant levels. Positive changes over time for both IMT and ESC protocols were noted. A longer term, multi-centre study is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000508077.

Intraoral myofascial therapy for chronic myogenous temporomandibular disorder: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Studies investigating the efficacy of intraoral myofascial therapies (IMTs) for chronic temporomandibular disorder (TMD) are rare. The present study was an expansion of a previously published pilot study that investigated whether chiropractic IMT and the addition of education and self-care were superior to no-treatment or IMT alone for 5 outcome measures-interincisal opening range, jaw pain at rest, jaw pain upon opening, jaw pain upon clenching, and global reporting of change-over the course of 1 year. METHODS: Ninety-three participants with myogenous TMD between the ages of 18 and 50 years experiencing chronic jaw pain of longer than 3 months in duration were recruited for the study. Successful applicants were randomized into 1 of 3 groups: (1) IMT consisting of 2 treatment interventions per week for 5 weeks, (2) IMT plus education and "self-care" exercises (IMTESC), and (3) wait-list control. The main outcome measures were used. Range of motion findings were measured by vernier callipers in millimeters, and pain scores were quantified using an 11-point self-reported graded chronic pain scale. Global reporting of change was a 7-point self-reported scale, balanced positively and negatively around a zero midpoint. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences in resting, opening and clenching pain, opening scores, and global reporting of change (P < .05) in both treatment groups compared with the controls at 6 months and 1 year. There were also significant differences between the 2 treatment groups at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that both chiropractic IMT and IMTESC were superior to no-treatment of chronic myogenous TMD over the course of 1 year, with IMTESC also being superior to IMT at 1 year.

Intra-oral myofascial therapy for chronic myogenous temporomandibular disorders: a randomized, controlled pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: Studies investigating the efficacy of intra-oral myofascial therapies (IMT) for chronic temporomandibular disorder (TMD) are rare. The objective of this randomized, controlled pilot study was to compare the effects of IMT and the addition of self-care and education over 6 months on four common TMD outcome measures: inter-incisal opening range, jaw pain at rest, jaw pain upon opening, and jaw pain upon clenching. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty myogenous TMD participants between the ages of 18 and 50 years, experiencing chronic jaw pain of longer than 3-month duration, were recruited for the present study. INTERVENTION: INCLUDED PATIENTS WERE RANDOMIZED INTO ONE OF THREE GROUPS: (1) IMT consisting of two treatment interventions per week for 5 weeks; (2) IMT plus 'self-care' involving education and exercises; and (3) wait list control. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Range of motion findings were measured in millimetres by vernier callipers and pain scores were quantified using an 11-point self-reported graded chronic pain scale. Measurements were taken at baseline, 6 weeks post-treatment, and 6 months post-treatment. RESULTS: The results showed statistically significant differences in resting, opening, and clenching pain and opening range scores (P<0.05) in both treatment groups compared to control at 6 months. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups during the course of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that IMT alone or with the addition of self-care may be of some benefit in the management of chronic TMD over the short-medium term. A larger scale study over a longer term (1-2 years) may be of further value.

The effectiveness of ENAR for the treatment of chronic neck pain in Australian adults: a preliminary single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence on electrotherapies for the management of chronic neck pain is either lacking or conflicting. New therapeutic devices being introduced to the market should be investigated for their effectiveness and efficacy. The ENAR (Electro Neuro Adaptive Regulator) therapy device combines Western biofeedback with Eastern energy medicine. METHODS: A small, preliminary randomised and controlled single-blinded trial was conducted on 24 participants (ten males, 14 females) between the ages of 18 to 50 years (median age of 40.5) Consent was obtained and participants were randomly allocated to one of three groups--ENAR, Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), or control therapy--to test the hypothesis that ENAR therapy would result in superior pain reduction/disability and improvements in neck function compared with TENS or control intervention. The treatment regimen included twelve 15-minute treatment sessions over a six week period, followed by two assessment periods. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scores, Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores, Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) scores and Short Form 36v1 (SF-36) quality of life scores reported by participants were collected at each of the assessments points throughout the trial (0, 6, 12, 18 and 24 weeks). RESULTS: Eligible participants (n = 30) were recruited and attended clinic visits for 6 months from the time of randomisation. Final trial sample (n = 24) comprised 9 within the ENAR group, 7 within the TENS group and 8 within the control group. With an overall study power of 0.92, the ENAR group showed a decrease in mean pain score from measurement at time zero (5.0 +/- 0.79 95%CI) to the first follow-up measurement at six weeks (1.4 +/- 0.83 95%CI). Improvement was maintained until week 24 (1.75 +/- 0.9 95%CI). The TENS and control groups showed consistent pain levels throughout the trial (3.4 +/- 0.96 95%CI and 4.1 +/- 0.9 95%CI respectively). Wald analysis for pain intensity was significant for the ENAR group (p = 0.01). Six month NDI scores showed the disability level of the ENAR group (11.3 +/- 4.5 95%CI) was approximately half that of either the TENS (22.9 +/- 4.8 95%CI) or the control (29.4 +/- 4.5 95%CI) groups. NDI analysis using the Wald method, indicated significant reductions in disability only for the ENAR group (p = 0.022). PSFS results also demonstrated significantly better performance of ENAR (p = 0.001) compared to both alternative interventions. Differential means analysis of the SF-36 results favoured ENAR for all of the subscales. Six of the initial 30 participants discontinued the trial protocol. CONCLUSION: ENAR therapy participants reported a significant reduction in the intensity of neck pain (VAS) and disability (NDI), as well as a significant increased function (PSFS) and overall quality of life (SF-36) than TENS or control intervention participants. Due to the modest sample size and restricted cohort characteristics, future larger and more comprehensive trials are required to better evaluate the potential efficacy of the ENAR device in a more widely distributed sample population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been registered with the Australian Clinical Trials Registry (ACTR): ACTRN012606000438550.