Treatment outcome of appliance therapy in temporomandibular disorder patients with myofascial pain after 6 and 12 months

AIM: To compare the long-term effect of treatment with a stabilization appliance (group T) and treatment with a control appliance (group C) in temporomandibular disorder (TMD) patients with myofascial pain. METHODS: In this controlled trial, 60 patients (mean age 29 years) with myofascial pain were evaluated after 10 weeks of treatment with either a stabilization appliance or a control appliance. All 60 patients were then assigned to 1 of 3 groups according to demand for treatment. Seventeen patients from group C requested another appliance and were given a stabilization appliance, thus creating a mixed group (group M). RESULTS: A significant difference in improvement of overall subjective symptoms in an intent-to-treat analysis between groups T and C was found at the follow-ups. In a survival analysis of treatment compliance, a significant difference was found between groups T and C. At the 6- and 12-month follow-ups, a significant reduction in myofascial pain, as measured on a visual analog scale, was found in all three groups. A significant decrease in frequency and intensity of myofascial pain was found in group T at the follow-ups. A significant decrease in number of tender sites on the masticatory muscles was found in group T at the follow-ups. CONCLUSION: The results support the conclusion that the positive treatment outcome obtained by use of a stabilization appliance to alleviate the signs and symptoms in patients with myofascial pain persisted after 6 and 12 months. Most patients in groups T and M reported positive changes in overall subjective symptoms in this trial. We therefore recommend use of the stabilization appliance in the treatment of TMD patients with myofascial pain.     

A 6- and 12-month follow-up of appliance therapy in TMD patients: a follow-up of a controlled trial

PURPOSE: This study compared the long-term effects of treatment with a stabilization appliance and treatment with a control appliance in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a controlled trial, 60 TMD patients with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pain were evaluated after 10 weeks of treatment with either a stabilization appliance or a control appliance. At the 10-week follow-up, the 60 patients were assigned to one of three groups according to their demand for treatment. Group T, the treatment group, comprised 30 patients treated with a stabilization appliance; group C, the control group, comprised nine patients treated with a control appliance; and group M, the mixed treatment group, comprised 21 patients treated with first a control appliance and then a stabilization appliance. Signs and symptoms were evaluated in all three groups at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. RESULTS: At the 6- and 12-month follow-ups, a significant reduction in TMJ pain as measured on a visual analogue scale was found in all three groups, and a significant decrease in signs and symptoms was found in groups T and M. CONCLUSION: After 6 and 12 months of use, the stabilization appliance was found to still be effective in the alleviation of signs and symptoms in patients with TMD. Many patients in group C changed to a stabilization appliance at the 1 0-week follow-up, which significantly reduced the number of patients in this group. Most patients reported positive change in overall subjective symptoms in this trial. The stabilization appliance can therefore be recommended for patients with TMD.     

Treatment outcome of short- and long-term appliance therapy in patients with TMD of myogenous origin and tension-type headache

The aim was to compare the short- and long-term effect of a stabilization appliance with a control appliance in myofascial pain patients suffering from episodic or chronic tension-type headache. Sixty patients (mean age 29 +/- 12 years) with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) of myogenous origin and headache were studied in this prospective controlled study. Seventy-seven per cent of the patients reported episodic and 23% chronic tension-type headache at the start of the study. The 60 patients were randomly assigned to a treatment group (stabilization appliance) or to a control group (control appliance). The patients were interviewed regarding symptoms of headache and myofascial pain and clinically examined for masticatory muscle tenderness. At the 10-week and the 6- and 12-month evaluations of appliance therapy, the treatment outcome of tension-type headache was studied. At the 10-week evaluation, 17 patients dropped-out from the control group by requesting another appliance and receiving a stabilization appliance. Another patient in the control group dropped out later during the trial. In an intent-to-treat analysis, significant differences in improvement of headache between treatment and control groups were found at the follow-ups. A 30% reduction of muscles tender to palpation correlated significantly to improvement of headache at all follow-ups. The stabilization appliance seems to have a positive effect on tension-type headache, both in a short- and in a long-term perspective in patients with TMD with pain of myogenous origin.     

Comparison of device‐supported sensorimotor training and splint intervention for myofascial temporomandibular disorder pain patients

This study was to compare the short‐term therapeutic efficacy of device‐supported sensorimotor training with that of standard splint therapy for patients with myofascial temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain over a treatment period of 3 months. We tested the hypothesis that both types of intervention are equally effective for pain reduction. In addition, the electromyographic (EMG) activity of the temporal and masseter muscles was recorded under conditions of force‐controlled submaximum and maximum biting in intercuspation. Of consecutive patients seeking treatment for non‐odontogenic oro‐facial pain, 45 patients with myofascial TMD pain (graded chronic pain status, GCPS, I and II) were randomly assigned to 2 treatment groups (sensorimotor training and conventional splint treatment). Patients were evaluated 4 times (initial examination, 2, 6 and 12 weeks later) by use of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD). Electromyographic activity was recorded at the initial session and after 3 months. Ease‐of‐use of the treatment options was also evaluated. Significant (P < .0001) pain reduction (sensorimotor training 53%, splint therapy 40%) was achieved for both groups, with no significant differences (P > .05) between the groups. Force‐controlled sub‐maximum normalized electromyographic activity was significantly different between T0 and T3 for group A (sensorimotor training, P < .05) but was not significantly different for group B (splint, P > .05). For normalized maximum‐biting EMG activity in intercuspation, however, a significant increase in EMG activity was observed for group A for the masseter and temporal muscles (P < .001) and for group B for the masseter muscle only (P < .001). Moreover, sensorimotor training was significantly (P < .05) less easy to use than the splint. The results of this study confirm the pain‐reducing effect of sensorimotor training for patients with myofascial TMD pain (GCPS I and II). This innovative active treatment might be a promising option for TMD pain patients.     

Behavioural changes and occlusal splints are effective in the management of masticatory myofascial pain: a short-term evaluation

Summary The aim of this research was to test the hypothesis that treatment with intra‐oral appliances with different occlusal designs was beneficial in the management of pain of masticatory muscles compared with a control group. A total of 51 patients were analysed according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) to obtain the diagnosis of masticatory myofascial pain (MMP). The sample was then randomly divided into three groups: group I (n = 21) wore a full coverage acrylic stabilisation occlusal splint; group II (n = 16) wore an anterior device nociceptive trigeminal inhibitory (NTI) system; and group III (n = 14) only received counselling for behavioural changes and self‐care (the control group). The first two groups also received counselling. Follow‐ups were performed after 2 and 6 weeks and 3 months. In these sessions, patients were evaluated by means of a visual analogue scale (VAS) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) of the masticatory muscles. Possible adverse effects were also recorded, such as discomfort while using the appliance and occlusal changes. The results were analysed with Kruskal–Wallis, anova , Tukey’s and Friedman tests, with a significance level of 5%. Group I showed improvement in the reported pain at the first follow‐up (2 weeks), whereas for groups II and III, this progress was detected only after 6 weeks and 3 months, respectively. The PPT values did not change significantly. It was concluded that behavioural changes are effective in the management of pain in MMP patients. However, the simultaneous use of occlusal devices appears to produce an earlier improvement.     

Short-term effectiveness of a prefabricated occlusal appliance in patients with myofascial pain

AIMS: To compare the short-term effectiveness of a stabilization appliance with a prefabricated occlusal appliance in myofascial pain patients in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Sixty-five patients at 2 centers were assigned to a stabilization appliance group (S group, n = 33) or a prefabricated appliance (Relax) group (R group, n = 32). The patients had been suffering from temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain for 3 months to 40 years. The patients were examined for symptoms and signs of temporomandibular disorders according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD and treated by a general practitioner. Treatment outcomes regarding pain, registered on a visual analog scale, and overall ratings of pain, registered on a verbal scale, were evaluated at 6- and 10-week follow-up appointments, and the data from the groups were compared statistically. RESULTS: The main treatment outcome in the 2 groups was a positive improvement of overall symptoms without any statistically significant differences between groups at either 6 or 10 weeks. At the 6-week follow-up, 72% of all patients reported a 30% reduction of the worst pain, and 55% of the patients reported a 50% reduction of the worst pain, whereas at the 10-week follow-up, the percentages were 69% and 61%, respectively. According to the verbal scale, 85% of all patients reported themselves to be "better," "much better," or "symptom-free" at the 6-week follow-up, and 83% reported this at the 10-week follow-up. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of the prefabricated occlusal appliance seemed to be the same as that of the stabilization appliance. The prefabricated appliance can therefore be recommended as a short-term therapy in adult patients with myofascial pain.     

Similar treatment outcome in myofascial TMD patients with localized and widespread pain

Objective: To study the outcome of oral appliance treatment in myofascial Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) patients with and without comorbid pain using pain site drawings.

Material and methods: This randomized, controlled multicentre study comprised 65 myofascial TMD patients diagnosed according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. Pain-site drawings were filled in at the baseline examination. The patients were treated with oral appliances. Treatment outcome was followed up for 1 year and analysed according to the recommendations by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) on an intent-to-treat basis. The data were analysed for two pain profiles, localized pain (face and head, n?=?26) versus widespread pain group (pain sites outside the face and head, n?=?39).

Results: Statistically significant improvement was registered within both groups for all outcome variables (characteristic pain intensity, 30% pain reduction of worst reported pain, graded chronic pain, depression, and somatization scores) during the follow-up with only small differences between the groups.

Conclusions: Oral appliance treatment had a positive effect on all outcome measures during the 1-year follow-up in patients suffering from myofascial TMD pain, regardless of whether the pain was localized or widespread. Multiple pain sites seemed to have surprisingly little influence on the outcome variables. However, some indications of more challenges when treating patients with widespread pain compared to local pain could be observed. Pain-site drawings seem to be useful in the clinical situation and could support the clinicians in decision-making regarding treatment planning.     

Recurrent headache in patients with temporomandibular disorders of mainly arthrogenous origin. A short- and long-term evaluation of the treatment effect of occlusal appliance therapy. A randomized controlled trial

Introduction:  In patient material recurrent headache has been presented in about 40–70%.
Aim:  The aim of this study was to evaluate recurrent headache before and after treatment with a stabilization or control appliance. The effect of treatment should be evaluated both in a short and long time perspective.
Materials and methods:  Sixty patients with TMD of mainly arthrogenous origin were selected from patients referred for treatment of TMD. The patients were randomly assigned to a treatment group (T), stabilization appliance, and a control group (C), control appliance. The study was performed as a randomized controlled trial evaluating the treatment effect after 10 weeks, 6 and 12 months. Patients who reported a negative treatment outcome and/or any discomfort associated with the appliances either had their appliances adjusted or received a stabilization appliance creating a new mixed group (M).
Results:  In the T and C groups, 77 and 83% respectively, reported headache at least once a week before treatment. At the 10 week follow-up a statistically significant difference was found regarding less frequent headache within the T-group but not within the C-group. Frequent headache was also found statistically significantly less often in the T-group compared with the C-group. At the 6 and 12 month follow-ups the frequency of headache seemed to have diminished within groups.
Conclusion:  Treatment with a stabilization appliance seems to have a positive effect on recurrent headache in a short- and long-term perspective in patients with TMD of mainly arthrogenous origin.     

The effects of manual therapy and exercise directed at the cervical spine on pain and pressure pain sensitivity in patients with myofascial temporomandibular disorders

Summary No studies have investigated the effects of the treatments directed at the cervical spine in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Our aim was to investigate the effects of joint mobilization and exercise directed at the cervical spine on pain intensity and pressure pain sensitivity in the muscles of mastication in patients with TMD. Nineteen patients (14 females), aged 19–57 years, with myofascial TMD were included. All patients received a total of 10 treatment session over a 5‐week period (twice per week). Treatment included manual therapy techniques and exercise directed at the cervical spine. Outcome measures included bilateral pressure pain threshold (PPT) levels over the masseter and temporalis muscles, active pain‐free mouth opening (mm) and pain (Visual Analogue Scale) and were all assessed pre‐intervention, 48 h after the last treatment (post‐intervention) and at 12‐week follow‐up period. Mixed‐model anovas were used to examine the effects of the intervention on each outcome measure. Within‐group effect sizes were calculated in order to assess clinical effect. The 2 × 3 mixed model anova revealed significant effect for time (F = 77·8; P < 0·001) but not for side (F = 0·2; P = 0·7) for changes in PPT over the masseter muscle and over the temporalis muscle (time: F = 66·8; P < 0·001; side: F = 0·07; P = 0·8). Post hoc revealed significant differences between pre‐intervention and both post‐intervention and follow‐up periods (P < 0·001) but not between post‐intervention and follow‐up period (P = 0·9) for both muscles. Within‐group effect sizes were large (d > 1·0) for both follow‐up periods in both muscles. The anova found a significant effect for time (F = 78·6; P < 0·001) for changes in pain intensity and active pain‐free mouth opening (F = 17·1; P < 0·001). Significant differences were found between pre‐intervention and both post‐intervention and follow‐up periods (P < 0·001) but not between the post‐intervention and follow‐up period (P > 0·7). Within‐group effect sizes were large (d > 0·8) for both post‐intervention and follow‐up periods. The application of treatment directed at the cervical spine may be beneficial in decreasing pain intensity, increasing PPTs over the masticatory muscles and an increasing pain‐free mouth opening in patients with myofascial TMD.     

Correlation between the levels of non‐specific physical symptoms and pressure pain thresholds measured by algometry in patients with temporomandibular disorders

Recent studies showed that patients with chronic TMD pain also feature increased sensitivity in other craniofacial regions, and even in remote peripheral areas, suggesting that nociceptive processing is centrally facilitated in this patient population. The aim of this study was to investigate the existence of a negative correlation between the levels of non‐specific physical symptoms and pressure pain thresholds measured by algometry at sites distant from the chief complaint of oro‐facial pain in patients with TMD. A total of 20 female patients were evaluated comprising 11 patients diagnosed with myofascial pain (Group I of RDC/TMD) and 9 patients with arthralgia (Group III of RDC/TMD), with both reporting chronic TMD pain for at least 3 months. Patients were tested by the pressure algometry technique, and, in the same visit, clinical diagnosis and levels of non‐specific physical symptoms, including pain‐related issues or not, were obtained. The raw scores were then standardised into a T‐score. The possible correlation between the dependent variable levels of non‐specific physical symptoms and pressure pain thresholds measured by algometry at sites distant from the chief complaint of oro‐facial pain was assessed with Spearman's correlation coefficient. Results were considered statistically significant, which stood a lower than 5% probability of occurring by chance (P < 0·05). A statistically significant (P = 0·02) negative correlation (?0·51) was found to exist between the levels of non‐specific physical symptoms, only if including issues involving pain‐related symptoms, and experimental pressure pain thresholds in patients with painful TMD.     

Salivary cortisol and IgA levels in patients with myofascial pain treated with occlusal appliances in the short term

Summary  In many studies, the endocrinological response of individuals to different kinds of stresses has been tested. There seems to be widespread agreement that stress, depression, disability and dysfunctional illness behaviors are critical aspects of patients suffering from symptoms like pain, arising out of temporomandibular disorders (TMD). We aimed to explore treatment-induced changes in salivary cortisol, IgA and flow rate values in TMD patients suffering from myofascial pain. Temporomandibular disorders patients ( n  = 39) were randomized into two groups and treated with two different occlusal appliances. Perceived stress regarding family, work, economy, relationships, general health and stress in general was evaluated at baseline according to a verbal scale. Paraffin-stimulated saliva samples were collected before treatment and during follow-up at 6 and 10 weeks. Flow rate was measured immediately after the saliva collection while salivary cortisol and IgA were determined from samples stored at −70 °C. No clear association between reported stress and cortisol or IgA values could be observed at baseline. At 10 weeks follow-up, 92% of the patients felt 'better, much better, symptom-free' and no difference was found between the two appliance groups. Cortisol, IgA and flow rate values showed no systematic between appliance groups' differences. All salivary parameters showed interindividual differences but stayed intra-individually on a similar level throughout the study and no statistically significant changes could be observed when comparing before and after treatment levels. To conclude, there were no treatment-induced changes in saliva parameters despite successful appliance therapy in myofascial pain patients.     

Short-term treatment of a resilient appliance in TMD pain patients: a randomized controlled trial

Summary  To investigate the short-term efficacy of a resilient appliance in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) suffering from pain, a randomized, controlled trial was performed in 80 recruited TMD pain patients. They were randomly allocated to one of two groups: treatment with a resilient appliance or treatment with a hard, palatal, non-occluding appliance. The primary treatment outcome measure was judged positive when patients' TMD pain at worst, according to the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), decreased by at least 30%. One additional treatment outcome was reduction of characteristic pain intensity. Number needed to treat was measured on the basis of primary treatment outcome at 10 weeks. At baseline, patient characteristics and TMD pain did not differ between the groups. There were no significant differences between groups regarding a 30% reduction in VAS-reported TMD pain at worst at 10 weeks' follow-up; 61% in the treatment group and 46% in the control group. After 6 and 10 weeks of treatment, CPI decreased in both groups. Number needed to treat was 9·1 for both the resilient and the control appliance therapy during 10 weeks. There was no statistically significant difference between the resilient appliance and the non-occluding control appliance in reducing TMD pain from a short-term perspective.     

Headache attributed to masticatory myofascial pain: impact on facial pain and pressure pain threshold

There is no clear evidence on how a headache attributed to temporomandibular disorder (TMD) can hinder the improvement of facial pain and masticatory muscle pain. The aim of this study was to measure the impact of a TMD‐attributed headache on masticatory myofascial (MMF) pain management. The sample was comprised of adults with MMF pain measured according to the revised research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (RDC/TMD) and additionally diagnosed with (Group 1, n = 17) or without (Group 2, n = 20) a TMD‐attributed headache. Both groups received instructions on how to implement behavioural changes and use a stabilisation appliance for 5 months. The reported facial pain intensity (visual analogue scale – VAS) and pressure pain threshold (PPT – kgf cm^?2) of the anterior temporalis, masseter and right forearm were measured at three assessment time points. Two‐way anova was applied to the data, considering a 5% significance level. All groups had a reduction in their reported facial pain intensity (P < 0·001). Mean and standard deviation (SD) PPT values, from 1·33 (0·54) to 1·96 (1·06) kgf cm^?2 for the anterior temporalis in Group 1 (P = 0·016), and from 1·27 (0·35) to 1·72 (0·60) kgf cm^?2 for the masseter in Group 2 (P = 0·013), had significant improvement considering baseline versus the 5th‐month assessment. However, no differences between the groups were found (P > 0·100). A TMD‐attributed headache in patients with MMF pain does not negatively impact pain management, but does change the pattern for muscle pain improvement.     

Long-term efficacy of resilient appliance therapy in TMD pain patients: a randomised, controlled trial

The aim was to investigate long-term efficacy of a resilient appliance in patients with pain due to temporomandibular disorders (TMD). A randomised, controlled trial was performed in 80 recruited TMD pain patients. They were randomly allocated to one of two groups: treatment with a resilient appliance or treatment with a hard, palatal, non-occluding appliance. The primary treatment outcome was judged positive when patients' characteristic pain intensity decreased by at least 30%. Additional treatment outcomes were physical functioning, emotional functioning and headache. At the 12-month follow-up 50% of the patients in the treatment group and 42% in the control group had a 30% reduction of characteristic pain intensity, when calculated in an intent-to-treat analysis. Jaw function improved in both groups at the 6- and 12-month follow-up. Emotional functioning improved in both groups at the 6-month follow-up; an improvement concerning grade of depression was found in the control group at 12 months. Headache decreased in both groups at both follow-ups. There were no statistically significant differences found regarding primary and additional outcomes between groups at the 6- and 12-months follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference between the resilient appliance and the non-occluding control appliance in reducing TMD pain, physical functioning, emotional functioning and headache in a 12 months perspective.     

Efficacy of stabilisation splint treatment on facial pain – 1‐year follow‐up

The aim of this randomised controlled trial was to assess the efficacy of stabilisation splint treatment on TMD‐related facial pain during a 1‐year follow‐up. Eighty patients were randomly assigned to two groups: splint group (n = 39) and control group (n = 41). The patients in the splint group were treated with a stabilisation splint and received counselling and instructions for masticatory muscle exercises. The controls received only counselling and instructions for masticatory muscles exercises. The outcome variables were the change in the intensity of facial pain (as measured with visual analogue scale, VAS) as well as the patients' subjective estimate of treatment outcome. The differences in VAS changes between the groups were analysed using variance analysis and linear regression models. The VAS decreased in both groups, the difference between the groups being not statistically significant. The group status did not significantly associate with the decrease in VAS after adjustment for baseline VAS, gender, age, length of treatment and general health status. The only statistically significant predicting factor was the baseline VAS, which was also confirmed by the mixed‐effect linear model. After 1‐year follow‐up, 27·6% of the patients in the splint group and 37·5% of the patients in the control group reported ‘very good' treatment effects. The findings of this study did not show stabilisation splint treatment to be more effective in decreasing facial pain than masticatory muscle exercises and counselling alone in the treatment of TMD‐related facial pain over a 1‐year follow‐up.     

Efficacy of stabilisation splint treatment on temporomandibular disorders

Summary The evidence supporting the use of stabilisation splints in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) is scarce and a need for well‐controlled studies exists. The aim of this randomised, controlled trial study was to assess the efficacy of stabilisation splint treatment on TMD. The sample consisted of 80 consecutive referred patients who were randomly assigned to the splint group (n = 39) and the control group (n = 41). Subjects in the splint group were treated with a stabilisation splint, whereas subjects in the control group did not receive any treatment except counselling and instructions for masticatory muscle exercises which were given also to the subjects in the splint group. Outcomes were visual analogue scale (VAS) on facial pain intensity and clinical findings for TMD which were measured at baseline and after 1‐month follow‐up. The differences in change between the groups were analysed using regression models. Facial pain decreased and most of the clinical TMD findings resolved in both of the groups. The differences in changes in VAS or clinical TMD findings between the groups were not statistically significant. The findings of this study did not show that stabilisation splint treatment in combination with counselling and masticatory muscle exercises has additional benefit in relieving facial pain and increasing the mobility of the mandible than counselling and masticatory muscle exercises alone in a short time‐interval.     

Clinical diagnoses and MRI findings in patients with TMD pain

The aim of this study was to compare the findings on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in temporomandibular disorders (TMD) pain patients with clinical diagnoses of myofascial pain or arthralgia/osteoarthritis in combination with myofascial pain according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD. The temporomandibular joints of 60 consecutive patients, 19 with myofascial pain and 41 patients with arthralgia/osteoarthritis in combination with myofascial pain were examined clinically and with MRI. Overall the most common MRI findings were different kinds of disc displacements and structural bone changes, which were found in both pain groups. However, disc displacements were found significantly (P=0.002) more often in the group arthralgia/osteoarthritis in combination with myofascial pain. One hundred and four joints were found to have no clinical diagnosis of disc displacements, but 64 of these joints had findings of disc displacements on MRI. Joint fluid was found in both pain groups. Patients having a combination of disc displacement and joint fluid were significantly (P=0.047) more common in the pain group arthralgia/osteoarthritis in combination with myofascial pain. In conclusion, the MRI findings of different kinds of disc displacement and structural bone changes were common in TMD patients. The clinical diagnoses for subdivision into myogenous only or combined arthrogenous and myogenous pain groups were not confirmed by MRI.     

Depression and somatization in patients with temporomandibular disorders

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Psychological and behavioral traits may be important for the diagnosis and management of orofacial pain. PURPOSE: This study compared the levels of depression and somatization in patients in single and multiple research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (RDC/TMD) diagnostic groups. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The RDC/TMD was established to allow standardization and replication of research into the most common forms of muscle- and joint-related research and is divided into 2 axes: axis I, clinical TMD, and axis II, pain-related disability and psychological status. One hundred seventeen patients (28 male and 89 female; mean age, 33.3 +/- 10.3 years) with RDC/TMD-defined clinical TMD were selected. The RDC/TMD history questionnaire and examination forms were input directly into computers with the use of a software program developed at the National University of Singapore (NUS TMDv1.1 software). Axis I and II variables were generated online and automatically archived for statistical analysis. Patients were subsequently classified into 7 groups based on the presence of the various RDC/TMD axis I diagnostic groups: group A, myofascial pain only (group I); group B, disk displacement only (group II); group C, other joint conditions such as arthralgia, osteoarthritis, and osteoarthrosis only (group III); group D, myofascial pain and disk displacement (groups I and II); group E, myofascial pain and other joint conditions (groups I and III); group F, disk displacement and other joint conditions (groups II and III); and group G, myofascial pain, disk displacement, and other joint conditions (groups I, II, and III). Differences in mean Symptom Checklist-90 scores between groups were compared by analysis of variance/Scheffé tests to contrast depression and somatization levels between the various axis I diagnostic groups (alpha=.05). RESULTS: The frequencies of the different groups were as follows: group A, 26.5%; group B, 29.9%; group C, 12.8%; group D, 6.0%; group E, 13.7%; group F, 4.3%; and group G, 6.8%. Approximately 39% of patients were clinically depressed, and 55% had moderate to severe somatization. Differences in mean depression and somatization with pain item scores were significant between groups (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, patients diagnosed with myofascial pain and other joint conditions (group E) had significantly higher levels of depression (P=.03) and somatization (P=.03) than patients diagnosed with only disk displacements (group B).     

Can an NTI‐tss device be effective as a first‐line therapy in patients with TMD myofascial pain?

This study was conducted to evaluate whether integrating a nociceptive trigeminal inhibition–tension suppression system (NTI‐tss) device with first‐line therapy of myofascial pain, which includes guidance, assurance, counselling and behavioural changes, would be more effective in alleviating symptoms. This randomised controlled clinical trial included 40 patients who were clinically diagnosed with myofascial pain according to Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD). Patients were randomly divided into two groups: the first group comprised patients who received guidance, assurance, counselling and behavioural changes; an NTI‐tss device was integrated to this protocol in the second group. Both groups exhibited reduction in pain levels and improvement of jaw function compared with baseline values, but the difference was not significant. Both groups demonstrated improvements in 6 weeks; however, the integration of NTI‐tss device into the therapy protocol did not provide any additional benefit in relieving symptoms of myofascial pain.     

Therapeutic effectiveness of a combined counseling plus stabilization appliance treatment for myofascial pain of the jaw muscles: A pilot study

Objective: This study aims to assess changes over time in pain intensity (VAS) and in pressure pain threshold (PPT) of the anterior temporalis and masseter muscles with a treatment protocol combining counseling and stabilization appliance as well as its effects on psychosocial factors.

Methods: Twenty individuals with myofascial pain of jaw muscles lasting from at least six months were selected for an uncontrolled before-after study. Counseling was performed by giving information on myofascial pain and advice on self-management. Stabilization appliances were delivered one week after the first counseling session. A number of outcome variables (i.e. visual analogue scale [VAS], pain pressure threshold [PPT] and Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders axis II [RDC/TMD]) were assessed at different evaluation points during a six-month follow-up. ANOVA for repeated measures and Pearson’s correlation test were used to evaluate changes in the outcome variables over time.

Results: Compared to baseline data, a significant positive change was found at the 1st week, 1st, 3^rd, and 6th month evaluations for VAS values (P < 0.0001) and at the 1st week, 3^rd, and 6th month evaluations for PPT values (P < 0.05). RDC/TMD axis II values were significantly different (P < 0.05) from baseline to all evaluations points.

Conclusion: The association of counseling and stabilization appliance is effective in the management of chronic myofascial pain of jaw muscles. Future controlled studies are required to get deeper into the assessment of the relative effectiveness of counseling and stabilization appliances.