Association Between Pharmacotherapy and Sleep Quality in Patients with Chronic Orofacial and Chronic Body Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Purpose: Sleep impairment is associated with many chronic pain disorders. While there is an association between chronic pain and sleep disturbances, little is known about the influence of pharmacotherapy for chronic pain conditions, particularly chronic opioid therapy, on sleep. This study aimed to 1) compare the sleep quality (SQ) in patients with two different pain conditions-chronic body pain and chronic orofacial pain; 2) assess the correlation of SQ and pain intensity; and 3) evaluate the association between pharmacotherapy and SQ. Patients and Methods: The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was used to measure the SQ in subjects with 1) chronic body pain (n = 100) and 2) chronic orofacial pain (n = 100). The visual analogue scale was applied for pain intensity rating. All subjects were adults recruited at Massachusetts General Hospital, United States. The subjects' demographic data, pain intensity, diagnosis and concurrent use of medications were extracted from their electronic medical records (EMR). Statistical analyses were performed using T-test and Pearson correlation coefficient. Results: Among 200 subjects (mean age 51.01 ± 15.52 years), 141 (70.5%) were females. PSQI and pain intensity were statistically significantly different between the two groups (p < 0.05 and p < 0.0001, respectively) and higher in subjects with chronic body pain. There was a positive correlation between PSQI and pain intensity (chronic orofacial pain r = 0.3535, p = 0.0004; chronic body pain: r = 0.2247, p < 0.026). PSQI was higher in chronic orofacial pain subjects utilizing opioids and benzodiazepines (PSQI = 15.25). Conclusion: Chronic pain impairs SQ, which is noticeably worse in subjects with body pain conditions. In addition, pain intensity was correlated with poorer SQ, which in turn was linked to the concomitant use of opioid and benzodiazepine therapy in chronic orofacial pain.

Clinical Characteristics, Treatment Effectiveness, and Predictors of Response to Pharmacotherapeutic Interventions in Burning Mouth Syndrome: A Retrospective Analysis.

AIMS: To identify the clinical characteristics of patients with primary and secondary burning mouth syndrome (BMS), to assess the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy in treating BMS, and to determine the clinical variables that may predict significant relief of clinical symptoms. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent clinical management for BMS in the Massachusetts General Hospital between January 2011 and December 2016 was carried out. Information regarding demographics, diagnostics, and therapeutic characteristics was extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Of 112 BMS patients, 77 had primary BMS. Patients with primary and secondary BMS had similar clinical characteristics except when it came to the presence of at least one symptom of sensory discrepancy, which was more prevalent in primary BMS. Following pharmacologic intervention, 46.8% of the patients with primary BMS experienced significant relief in symptoms, and this therapy was associated with a lower level of pain, an onset of symptoms of less than 1 year, hyperlipidemia, absence of depression disorder, and nonconcurrent use of other neuropathic medications. In contrast, only 31.4% of patients with secondary BMS experienced significant relief in symptoms, and this was associated with the presence of anxiety disorder. Stepwise forward conditional logistic regression analysis suggested that nonconcurrent use of neuropathic medications was a predictor for significant relief of symptoms in patients with primary BMS. Likewise, the model suggested that presence of anxiety disorder was a predictor in patients with secondary BMS. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of an associated sensory discrepancy was higher in primary BMS. Pharmacologic intervention provided significant relief for approximately half of the patients with primary BMS and nearly one-third of the patients with secondary BMS. Concurrent use of neuropathic medications was a negative predictor, and presence of anxiety disorder a positive predictor, of therapeutic response among patients with primary BMS and secondary BMS, respectively.

Sex, Gender, and Orofacial Pain.

This review examines gender prevalence in orofacial pain to elucidate underlying factors that can explain such differences. This review highlights how gender affects (1) the association of hormonal factors and pain modulation; (2) the genetic aspects influencing pain sensitivity and pain perception; (3) the role of resting blood pressure and pain threshold; and (4) the impact of sociocultural, environmental, and psychological factors on pain.

Nonsurgical Management of Pediatric Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction.

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are a subgroup of craniofacial pain problems involving the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), masticatory muscles, and associated head and neck musculoskeletal structures. These disorders are subclassified into TMJ articular disorders and masticatory muscle disorders. Patients with TMD most commonly present with pain, restricted or asymmetric mandibular motion, and TMJ sounds during mandibular movements. The prevalence tends to increase with age. Management of TMJ articular disorders consists of a combination of patient education, home-care plan, biobehavioral therapy, physical therapy, orthotic jaw appliance therapy, pharmacotherapy, and/or surgery. The goal is to increase function, reduce pain, and improve quality of life.

Craniofacial Morphology Affects Bite Force in Patients with Painful Temporomandibular Disorders.

Craniofacial morphology affects masticatory performance in healthy dentate subjects, but little is known about its effects in patients with painful temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). Forty-eight female patients (mean age of 28±5.8 years) with painful TMDs underwent lateral cephalometric radiography. Using Ricketts' cephalometric analysis and the Vert method, subjects were assigned to three groups according to their craniofacial morphology: brachyfacial (n=22), mesofacial (n=13), and dolichofacial (n=13). Research diagnostic criteria for TMD were used to confirm the TMD diagnosis for each patient. Pain intensity was reported by each patient based on a visual analog scale (VAS). Maximum bite force (MBF) was measured with pressure sensors placed on the first molar site. Masticatory performance (MP) was assessed by chewing a silicone-based artificial material and determining the resulting particle size by the sieve method. Chewing ability (CA) was evaluated for seven food types and analyzed by a VAS questionnaire. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by a Tukey-Kramer test (p<0.05). MBF differed in each group, with brachyfacial patients having the highest MBF values. There was no difference in MP among the groups. The groups differed only in their ability to chew one of the seven evaluated food types. In summary, craniofacial morphology affects the MBF without impairing MP or CA in patients with painful TMDs.

Craniofacial Morphology Affects Bite Force in Patients with Painful Temporomandibular Disorders

Abstract Craniofacial morphology affects masticatory performance in healthy dentate subjects, but little is known about its effects in patients with painful temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). Forty-eight female patients (mean age of 28±5.8 years) with painful TMDs underwent lateral cephalometric radiography. Using Ricketts' cephalometric analysis and the Vert method, subjects were assigned to three groups according to their craniofacial morphology: brachyfacial (n=22), mesofacial (n=13), and dolichofacial (n=13). Research diagnostic criteria for TMD were used to confirm the TMD diagnosis for each patient. Pain intensity was reported by each patient based on a visual analog scale (VAS). Maximum bite force (MBF) was measured with pressure sensors placed on the first molar site. Masticatory performance (MP) was assessed by chewing a silicone-based artificial material and determining the resulting particle size by the sieve method. Chewing ability (CA) was evaluated for seven food types and analyzed by a VAS questionnaire. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by a Tukey-Kramer test (p<0.05). MBF differed in each group, with brachyfacial patients having the highest MBF values. There was no difference in MP among the groups. The groups differed only in their ability to chew one of the seven evaluated food types. In summary, craniofacial morphology affects the MBF without impairing MP or CA in patients with painful TMDs.

Resumo A morfologia craniofacial afeta a performance mastigatória em individuos dentados saudáveis, mas pouco é conhecido sobre seus efeitos em pacientes com desordens temporomandibulares (DTMs) com sintomatologia dolorosa. Quarenta e oito pacientes do gênero feminino (idade média de 28±5,8 anos) com DTM e sintomatologia dolorosa foram submetidas à radiografia cefalométrica lateral. Por meio da análise cefalométrica de Ricketts e método Vert, as voluntárias foram divididas segundo a morfologia crabiofacial em: braquifaciais (n=22), mesofaciais (n=13) ou dolicofaciais (n=13). O Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD) foi utilizado para diagnosticar a presença de DTM em cada paciente. A intensidade de dor foi reportada por cada paciente usando a escala visual analógica (EVA). A força máxima de mordida (FMM) foi medida com sensores de pressão colocados na região de primeiros molares. A performance mastigatória (PM) foi avaliada por meio da mastigação de material artificial confeccionado à base de silicone e determinada pelo tamanho da partícula, usando o método de fracionamento em peneiras. A habilidade mastigatória (HM) foi avaliada por meio de sete tipos de alimento e analisada por meio de EVA. Os dados foram analisados por ANOVA, seguido por teste de Tukey-Kramer (p<0,05). A FMM foi diferente entre cada grupo, sendo que as pacientes braquifaciais apresentaram os maiores valores. Não houve diferença na PM entre os grupos. Os grupos somente diferiram quanto à HM para mastigar apenas um dos sete tipos de alimentos avaliados. Em resumo, a morfologia craniofacial afeta a FMM sem prejudicar a PM ou HM em pacientes com DTM e sintomatologia dolorosa.

Vertical Craniofacial Morphology and its Relation to Temporomandibular Disorders.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the association between craniofacial morphology and temporomandibular disorders in adults. The influence of different craniofacial morphologies on painful temporomandibular disorders was also evaluated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 200 subjects were selected, including 100 with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and 100 without TMD (control), diagnosed by research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders. All subjects were submitted to lateral cephalometric radiographs, and classified as brachyfacial, mesofacial, or dolichofacial by Ricketts' analysis. Data were analysed by Tukey-Kramer and Chi-square tests. RESULTS: No association between craniofacial morphology and TMD was found (P = 0.6622). However, brachyfacial morphology influences the presence of painful TMD (P = 0.0077). CONCLUSIONS: Craniofacial morphology is not related to temporomandibular disorders in general.

Soft Tissues Changes After Immediate and Delayed Single Implant Placement in Esthetic Area: A Systematic Review.

The aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to compare soft tissue aspects of immediate and delayed implant placement in esthetic areas. This review of literature was conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), Lilacs, Scielo, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). For those studies that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, the results were analyzed and summarized according to the treatment protocol used for implant placement. The primary parameters taken into consideration were papilla level (PL) and marginal mucosa level (MML) around implants. Four randomized controlled trials (RCT) were selected for analysis, but all were deemed as being of poor quality according to quality assessment. No studies reported any statistically significant differences concerning the soft tissue esthetic parameters analyzed around immediate or delayed implants at any follow-up periods reported. However, PL results seemed to be more reliable than were MML results, due to the PL standardization of the method of analysis, which showed a tendency for poorer results around immediately placed implants. In conclusion, although the results are based on only a few poor quality RCTs, both treatment options for implant placement demonstrated similar outcomes in the esthetic area, especially when PL was considered.

Mastication movements and sleep quality of patients with myofascial pain: occlusal device therapy improvements.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Patients with myofascial pain experience impaired mastication, which might also interfere with their sleep quality. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the jaw motion and sleep quality of patients with myofascial pain and the impact of a stabilization device therapy on both parameters. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty women diagnosed with myofascial pain by the Research Diagnostic Criteria were enrolled. Pain levels (visual analog scale), jaw movements (kinesiography), and sleep quality (Epworth Sleepiness Scale; Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index) were evaluated before (control) and after stabilization device use. Range of motion (maximum opening, right and left excursions, and protrusion) and masticatory movements during Optosil mastication (opening, closing, and total cycle time; opening and closing angles; and maximum velocity) also were evaluated. Repeated-measures analysis of variance in a generalized linear mixed models procedure was used for statistical analysis (α=.05). RESULTS: At baseline, participants with myofascial pain showed a reduced range of jaw motion and poorer sleep quality. Treatment with a stabilization device reduced pain (P<.001) and increased both mouth opening (P<.001) and anteroposterior movement (P=.01). Also, after treatment, the maximum opening (P<.001) and closing (P=.04) velocities during mastication increased, and improvements in sleep scores for the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (P<.001) and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (P=.04) were found. CONCLUSION: Myofascial pain impairs jaw motion and quality of sleep; the reduction of pain after the use of a stabilization device improves the range of motion and sleep parameters.

Is migraine a complicating factor for evidence-based therapy for masticatory myofascial pain? A case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the response to conservative treatment of pain in patients diagnosed with masticatory myofascial pain (MMP) with or without migraine. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 61 patients were evaluated and divided into 2 groups: Group 1 (G1), patients with MMP (n = 34); Group 2 (G2), patients with MMP and migraine (n = 27). Pain was assessed subjectively by visual analog scale (VAS) and objectively through masticatory muscle palpation at baseline and after 3 treatment visits. Treatment included occlusal appliances, medication, and self-care exercises. RESULTS: G2 reported greater discomfort subjectively and objectively at all evaluation visits; however, significant difference between groups was noted objectively only at baseline (P = .0052). Regardless of group, pain levels decreased significantly over time as measured by VAS analyses (G1 P = .0033; G2 P = .0031) and muscle palpation (G1 P < .0001; G2 P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based therapy improved pain scores over time in MMP patients regardless of the presence of migraine.