Comparison of three different options for immediate treatment of painful temporomandibular disorders: a randomized, controlled pilot trial

Synthesis of temporomandibular disorders management intervention outcomes for development of core outcome sets: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The selection of appropriate outcomes in clinical trials and systematic reviews is a crucial factor in determining the results that are useful, reliable, and relevant for both patients and healthcare professionals. Clinicians and researchers have been encouraged to develop and apply core outcome sets (COS) to minimise the discrepancy between studies.

AIM

This systematic review is the first phase of the COS development project for clinical trials in temporomandibular disorders (COS-TMD). It aims to identify and synthesise the outcomes used in the randomised controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the effectiveness of interventions used in TMD management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was performed in several databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and EMBASE. The eligibility criteria comprised RCT that applied any intervention to treat temporomandibular joint disorders or masticatory muscle disorders. The identified outcomes were categorised according to domains of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT).

RESULTS

The electronic search resulted in 1606 studies. After removing duplicates and applying the eligibility criteria, 106 RCT were included. A total of 43 studies evaluated masticatory muscle disorders, 27 evaluated temporomandibular joint disorders, and 36 analysed mixed TMD.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation showed significant variability in the types of outcomes and their measurement instruments. In addition, some domains such as physical and emotional functioning, participant ratings of global improvement and adverse events have been neglected when determining the effectiveness of treatments for TMD.

A clinical trial: Aqualizer ™ therapy and its effects on myopathies or temporomandibular dysfunctions. Part I: Objective parameters

OBJECTIVE

Symptoms of temporomandibular dysfunction (TMD) may include pain in the muscles or restrictions opening the mouth. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of initial Aqualizer™ therapy.

METHODS

Group 1 received initial Aqualizer™ therapy before definitive hard splint; Group 2 received no initial therapy. Patients with arthrosis, partial/total prosthesis or undergoing splint therapy were excluded. Objective (temporomandibular joint palpation, temporomandibular joint auscultation, palpation of the chewing muscles, and mobility of the lower jaw) parameters were evaluated. The level of statistical significance was 5% (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

In 53 patients (Group 1 n = 25; Group 2 n = 28), a significant improvement (p < 0.001) was found in Group 1 in pain on palpation (masseter muscle, temporal muscle, post-mandibular region, lateral pterygoid muscle, and suboccipital region), but no significant differences in jaw mobility were found.

CONCLUSION

Aqualizer™ therapy produces significant improvement of primary symptoms.

Recording the maxillomandibular relationship with the Aqualizer system prior to occlusal splint therapy for treating temporomandibular disorders: a randomized controlled trial

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) present a public health issue and are one of the most common musculoskeletal conditions causing chronic pain. This study compares the outcomes of occlusal splint therapy in patients with TMD following two different maxillomandibular relationship (MMR) registration techniques. 40 TMD patients were randomly allocated to MMR registration with the Aqualizer system (AQU) or with chin point guidance (CPG) prior to fabricating occlusal splints. TMD symptoms, subjective pain intensity, and quality of life (QoL) were recorded at baseline and after 3 and 6 months. The treatment led to an overall reduction of TMD symptoms in both groups (Conover test, p < 0.00001). TMJ sounds, TMJ pain with palpation and muscle pain with palpation subsided regardless of the type of MMR registration method used (Cohen's d > 0.8). AQU-based occlusal splints led to a better improvement of TMJ pain with maximum opening compared to CPG-based occlusal splints (Cohen's d = 0.9; CPG d = 0.13). In both groups, occlusal splint treatment had little to no effect on correcting lateral mandible deviation or improving restricted jaw opening. After 6 months occlusal splints in both groups had a large effect on improving subjective pain intensity (Cohen's d > 0.8), however, patients reported a higher QoL in the AQU group compared to the CPG group (Mann-Whitney-U-test, p < 0.05). The results of this study support the premise that occlusal splints are effective in relieving pain-related TMD symptoms. The Aqualizer can be considered for determining MMR in cases, where guided registration techniques are not possible.Trial registration: DRKS00031998.

A clinical trial: Aqualizer ™ therapy and its effects on myopathies or temporomandibular dysfunctions. Part II: Subjective parameters

OBJECTIVE

Temporomandibular dysfunction (TMD) reduces patients' quality of life (QoL). The aim was to assess the effects of initial Aqualizer™ therapy.

METHODS

Group 1 (initial Aqualizer™ therapy) before definitive splint therapy or Group 2 (no initial therapy). Patients with arthrosis, partial/total prosthesis, or were undergoing splint therapy were excluded. Subjective parameters were evaluated: duration and intensity of pain, influence on wellbeing, changes in the head/neck area, handling and improvement of the Aqualizer™, improvement in QoL. The statistical significance level was 5% (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

In 53 patients (Group 1 n = 25; Group 2 n = 28), the improvement in patients' well-being and intensity of pain in both groups was significant (p < 0.001). An improvement in QoL was found in 84% of patients in Group 1 and 75% in Group 2.

CONCLUSION

Initial Aqualizer™ therapy can decrease the intensity of pain and increase patients'.

Patients' perceptions on temporomandibular disorder treatment with hydrostatic oral splints - a pilot study

Objective

To evaluate temporomandibular disorder (TMD) treatment with a prefabricated, hydrostatic oral splint (HOS) based on self-reported patient’s symptoms using a standardized questionnaire.

Methods

Two hundred fifty-eight questionnaires from patients diagnosed with TMD and subsequently treated with HOS were collected from two independent private practices. Based on patient’s comfort the questionnaire recorded TMD symptoms and symptom regression. Descriptive and comparative statistics was carried out using SPSS.

Results

A total of 221 questionnaires were analyzed. Patients reported TMD symptoms such as pain (93.2%), TMJ clicking (66.1%), headache (25.8%), cervical spine disorders (23.5%), restricted mouth opening (22.6%) and tinnitus (11.8%). For most symptoms, improvement was reported mostly after two weeks, except for tinnitus, where positive effects were usually reported after four weeks.

Conclusion

HOS seem to be effective for immediate treatment of pain and other TMD symptoms. Based on the available data, a treatment period of four weeks can be recommended.

Comparative evaluation of occlusal splint therapy and muscle energy technique in the management of temporomandibular disorders: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Background:

Contradicting evidence regarding the effects of occlusal splint therapy in the management of Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) and promising results shown by muscle energy technique.

Aim:

To determine and compare the effects of occlusal splint therapy, muscle energy technique, and combined treatment with education for self-management and counseling in the management of TMD.

Study Design and Settings:

Randomized clinical trial.

Methodology:

A total of 160 participants diagnosed with TMD according to Diagnostic Criteria/TMD axis I were randomly allocated into four treatment groups with equal allocation ratio using random numbers table. The main inclusion criteria were the presence of pain in the preauricular area, TMJ and/or muscles of mastication and maximum mouth opening <40 mm. Group A participants received muscle energy technique, Group B participants received occlusal splint therapy, Group C participants received combined treatment, and Group D participants received education for self-management and counseling (control). Control group treatment was provided to all the trial participants.

Statistical Analysis:

Intragroup comparison was made using Friedman test and Wilcoxon test while intergroup comparison was done using Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney U test.

Results:

Intensity of pain on a visual analog scale and maximum mouth opening were measured at baseline, at 1 week, at 2 weeks, at 1 month, and after 3 months.

Conclusion:

Muscle energy technique, occlusal splint therapy and combined treatment significantly reduce pain compared to controls and muscle energy and combined treatment are superior to other groups for mouth opening improvements in patients with TMD.

Dextrose Prolotherapy Versus Lidocaine Injection for Temporomandibular Dysfunction: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: Several intraarticular injections, including dextrose and lidocaine, are reported to reduce pain and dysfunction in temporomandibular dysfunction (TMD) and increase maximal jaw opening; our goal was to determine whether dextrose/lidocaine outperforms sterile water/lidocaine for TMD. Design: Pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Setting: Outpatient clinic. Subjects: Chronic (≥3 months) of moderate-to-severe (≥6/10) jaw or facial pain meeting research-specific TMD criteria. Intervention: Blinded intraarticular dextrose prolotherapy (DPT) (20% dextrose/0.2% lidocaine) versus intraarticular lidocaine (0.2% lidocaine in sterile water) at 0, 1, and 2 months. Participants were then unblinded and offered DPT by request for 9 additional months. Main outcome measures: Primary: Numerical Rating Scale (0-10 points) score for facial pain and jaw dysfunction; percentage achieving ≥50% improvement in pain and dysfunction (0, 3, and 12 months). Secondary: Maximal interincisal opening (MIO; 0 and 3 months). Intention-to-treat analysis was by joint using mixed-model regression. Results: Randomization of 29 participants (25 female, 47 ± 17 years, 43 joints) produced similar groups. Three-month pain and dysfunction improvements were similar, but more DPT-treated joints improved by ≥50% in pain (17/22 vs. 6/21; p = 0.028). The MIO improved in both groups (5.6 ± 5.8 mm vs. 5.1 ± 7.0 mm; p = 0.70). From 3 to 12 months, minimal DPT was received by original DPT and lidocaine recipients, 0.5 ± 0.9 and 0.6 ± 1.5 injections, respectively, with only 2 out of 21 joints in the original lidocaine group receiving more than 1 dextrose injection after 3 months. Twelve-month analysis revealed that joints in the original DPT group improved more in jaw pain (4.8 ± 2.4 points vs. 2.6 ± 2.9 points; p = 0.026) and jaw dysfunction (5.3 ± 2.6 points vs. 2.7 ± 2.3 points; p = 0.013). More DPT than lidocaine-treated joints improved by ≥50% in both pain (19/22 vs. 5/21; p = 0.003) and dysfunction (17/22 vs. 7/21; p = 0.040). There were no adverse events; satisfaction was high. Conclusions: Intraarticular DPT resulted in clinically important and statistically significant improvement in pain and dysfunction at 12 months compared to lidocaine injection (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01617356).

Oral splints for temporomandibular disorder or bruxism: a systematic review

Objectives To evaluate the clinical-effectiveness of oral splints for patients with TMD or bruxism for the primary outcomes: pain (TMD) and tooth wear (bruxism).

Data sources Four databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception until 1 October 2018.

Data selection and extraction Randomised controlled trials comparing all types of splints versus no/minimal treatment for patients with TMD or bruxism were eligible. Standard Cochrane review methods were used. Standardised mean differences (SMD) were pooled for the primary outcome of pain, using random effects models in TMD patients.

Data synthesis Thirty-seven trials were included and the evidence identified was of very low certainty using GRADE assessments. When all subtypes of TMD were pooled into one global TMD group, there was no evidence that splints reduced pain: SMD (up to 3 months) -0.18 (95% CI -0.42 to 0.06); 13 trials, 1,076 participants. There was no evidence that any other outcomes improved when using splints. There was no evidence of adverse events associated with splints, but reporting was poor regarding this outcome. No trials measured tooth wear in patients with bruxism. There was a large variation in diagnostic criteria, splint types and outcome measures used and reported. Sensitivity analyses based on these factors did not indicate a reduction in pain.

Conclusions The very low-certainty evidence identified did not demonstrate that splints reduced pain in TMD as a group of conditions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether splints reduce tooth wear in patients with bruxism.

No evidence on the effectiveness of oral splints for the management of temporomandibular joint dysfunction pain in both short and long-term follow-up systematic reviews and meta-analysis studies

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of oral splints in reducing the intensity of pain in patients with temporomandibular joint dysfunction in both short and long-term treatment durations. Electronic databases, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, Egyptian Knowledge Bank, and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing different types of splints to non-occluding splints, behavioral therapy, pharmacotherapy, counseling, and no treatment. The risk of bias was assessed by using Cochrane risk of bias recommendations. Fixed and random effects were used to summarize the outcomes. The effect estimates were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD) or risk ratios with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses were carried out according to the treatment duration. Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of short-term studies up to three months revealed no significant difference between the study groups. However, long-term studies exhibited a significant difference in pain reduction in favor of the control group. Total analysis revealed that the control group resulted in significant pain reduction (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.05-0.23, P=0.002, I²=0%). Oral splints are not effective in reducing pain intensity or improving function in patients with temporomandibular joint dysfunction.

Comparison of acupuncture on specific and non-specific points for the treatment of painful temporomandibular disorders: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The aim of this single-centre, two-arm, parallel-group, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial was to investigate the disputed specific effectiveness of acupuncture by comparing acupuncture on specific and non-specific points among patients with non-chronic, painful TMDs.

METHODS

Following predefined eligibility criteria, 49 consecutive patients of both sexes were recruited to the study. All subjects were diagnosed with a non-chronic (Graded Chronic Pain Scale grade <3) painful TMD, as assessed using the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD). Patients were randomly assigned to group A (acupuncture on specific points) or group B (acupuncture on non-specific points) after the initial examination (T0). Both acupuncture treatment sessions were conducted by a trained dentist once a week for four weeks. The examination was repeated five weeks (T5) after T0 by one calibrated examiner who was unaware of the study groups. Characteristic pain intensity (CPI) was evaluated as the main outcome criterion and compared between times and treatment groups by means of non-parametric tests (significance level set at P = .05). Secondary outcomes comprised the maximum corrected active mouth-opening without pain (MAO); patients' expectations regarding acupuncture treatment and pain development; depressivity; and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL).

RESULTS

A total of 41 patients (38 female) successfully completed the study (mean age: 40.17 ± 16.61). The two groups did not differ significantly at any time in terms of age and CPI. However, CPI was significantly (P < .05) lower at T5 than at T0 for both groups (29.66 and 30.35% lower in group A and group B, respectively). An increase in MAO was observed at T5 for both groups but was significant for group B only (P = .016). All patients had positive expectations of acupuncture therapy, and the two groups did not differ significantly at T5 with regard to the extent to which their expectations had been fulfilled by the treatment (P = .717). Comparison of T0 and T5 showed a statistically significant reduction of depressivity for group A (P = .0205), but no significant change for group B (P = .329). At T5, OHRQoL had improved significantly for both groups (group A, P = .018; group B, P < .001) compared with at T0.

CONCLUSIONS

Acupuncture on both specific and non-specific points reduces the non-dysfunctional pain of TMD patients. The effect of acupuncture on painful TMD cannot be attributed to the specific point selection.

Adhesive dentistry sensory stimulus technique as a neuromechanism for the treatment of orofacial pain associated to temporomandibular disorders: Case study

Purpose

The authors intend, by presenting a case study, emphasize the neuromodulation process of orofacial pain induced by the stimulation of the sensory and motor stimulation of the trigeminal nerve, which can play an important role on pain modulation.

Materials and methods

A 25 year-old woman presenting orofacial pain was referred to the stomatology service at the Centro Hospitalar do Porto. After collecting the patient's anamnesis, the thermographic camera FLIR i7 was used to record the thermal status of the orofacial structures, before the adhesive dentistry sensory stimulus protocol, after 45 minutes, and after one week.

Results

This study suggests the relation of adhesive dentistry sensory stimulus technique in the neuromodulation of orofacial pain and its association with the temporomandibular disorders . As the tongue senses the stimulus of the resin composite placed on the palatal surface of the 1^st premolar, 2^nd premolar and 1^st molar of the maxilla, this can promote and induce an effect regarding a peripheral nerve neuromodulation resulting in a blockage of the nociceptive trigeminal pathway from temporomandibular disorders.

Conclusion

Orofacial pain is a common complaint among the patients that come to a dentistry appointment, which may have different diagnosis and treatments. A positive effect on the patient's symptomatology was confirmed clinically on subsequent dental appointments and monitored by infrared thermography.

Oral splints for patients with temporomandibular disorders or bruxism: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Splints are a non-invasive, reversible management option for temporomandibular disorders or bruxism. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of splints remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of splints for patients with temporomandibular disorders or bruxism. This evidence synthesis compared (1) all types of splint versus no/minimal treatment/control splints and (2) prefabricated versus custom-made splints, for the primary outcomes, which were pain (temporomandibular disorders) and tooth wear (bruxism).

REVIEW METHODS

Four databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched from inception until 1 October 2018 for randomised clinical trials. The searches were conducted on 1 October 2018. Cochrane review methods (including risk of bias) were used for the systematic review. Standardised mean differences were pooled for the primary outcome of pain, using random-effects models in temporomandibular disorder patients. A Markov cohort, state-transition model, populated using current pain and Characteristic Pain Intensity data, was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for splints compared with no splint, from an NHS perspective over a lifetime horizon. A value-of-information analysis identified future research priorities.

RESULTS

Fifty-two trials were included in the systematic review. The evidence identified was of very low quality with unclear reporting by temporomandibular disorder subtype. When all subtypes were pooled into one global temporomandibular disorder group, there was no evidence that splints reduced pain [standardised mean difference (at up to 3 months) -0.18, 95% confidence interval -0.42 to 0.06; substantial heterogeneity] when compared with no splints or a minimal intervention. There was no evidence that other outcomes, including temporomandibular joint noises, decreased mouth-opening, and quality of life, improved when using splints. Adverse events were generally not reported, but seemed infrequent when reported. The most plausible base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was uncertain and driven by the lack of clinical effectiveness evidence. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed splints becoming more cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of ≈£6000, but the probability never exceeded 60% at higher levels of willingness to pay. Results were sensitive to longer-term extrapolation assumptions. A value-of-information analysis indicated that further research is required. There were no studies measuring tooth wear in patients with bruxism. One small study looked at pain and found a reduction in the splint group [mean difference (0-10 scale) -2.01, 95% CI -1.40 to -2.62; very low-quality evidence]. As there was no evidence of a difference between splints and no splints, the second objective became irrelevant.

LIMITATIONS

There was a large variation in the diagnostic criteria, splint types and outcome measures used and reported. Sensitivity analyses based on these limitations did not indicate a reduction in pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The very low-quality evidence identified did not demonstrate that splints reduced pain in temporomandibular disorders as a group of conditions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not splints reduce tooth wear in patients with bruxism. There remains substantial uncertainty surrounding the most plausible incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

FUTURE WORK

There is a need for well-conducted trials to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of splints in patients with carefully diagnosed and subtyped temporomandibular disorders, and patients with bruxism, using agreed measures of pain and tooth wear.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068512.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Treatment of Temporomandibular Dysfunction With Hypertonic Dextrose Injection (Prolotherapy): A Randomized Controlled Trial With Long-term Partial Crossover

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and longer-term effectiveness of dextrose prolotherapy injections in participants with temporomandibular dysfunction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A randomized controlled trial with masked allocation was conducted from January 14, 2013, through December 19, 2015. Forty-two participants (with 54 joints) meeting temporomandibular dysfunction criteria were randomized (1:1) to 3 monthly intra-articular injections (20% dextrose/0.2% lidocaine or 0.2% lidocaine) followed by as-needed dextrose/0.2% lidocaine injections through 1 year. Primary and secondary outcome measures included a 0 to 10 Numerical Rating Scale score for facial pain and jaw dysfunction; maximal interincisal opening (MIO) measured in millimeters, percentage of joints with 50% or more change (improvement) in pain and function, and satisfaction.

RESULTS

Randomization produced a control group with more female participants (P=.03), longer pain duration (P=.01), and less MIO (P=.01). Upon 3-month analysis, including pertinent covariates, dextrose group participants reported decreased jaw pain (4.3±2.9 points vs 1.8±2.7 points; P=.02), jaw dysfunction (3.5±2.8 points vs 1.0±2.1 points; P=.008), and improved MIO (1.5±4.1 mm vs -1.8±5.1 mm; P=.006). Control group participants received dextrose injections beginning at 3 months. No between-group differences were noted at 12 months; pooled data suggested that jaw pain, jaw function, and MIO improved by 5.2±2.7 points (68%), 4.1±2.8 points (64%), and 2.1±5.5 mm, respectively. Pain and dysfunction improved by at least 50% in 38 of 54 (70%) and 39 of 54 (72%) jaws, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Intra-articular dextrose injection (prolotherapy) resulted in substantial improvement in jaw pain, function, and MIO compared with masked control injection at 3 months; clinical improvements endured to 12 months. Satisfaction was high.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01706172.

Prevalence of TMJ Disorders among the Patients Attending the Dental Clinic of Ajman University of Science and Technology-Fujairah Campus, UAE

The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders (if any) among the patients attending the dental clinic (for routine dental treatment) of Ajman University of Science and Technology (AUST)-Fujairah campus, UAE, and its possible causes. A sample of 100 adult patients attending the dental clinic of AUST for different types of dental treatment were collected; the routine examination of the TMJ and possible disorders such as clicking, crepitation, limitation or deviation during mouth opening, or tenderness reveals that 41% of the sample experience varying degrees of disorders in the TMJ. Radiographs were taken if needed (panoramic radiograph). The information was collected and recorded for each patient through questionnaires.