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

Presence of widespread pain predicts comorbidities and treatment response in temporomandibular disorders patients

OBJECTIVES

Investigate the presence of widespread pain in a well-defined TMD group and analyze its interrelationship with various comorbidities. Also, longitudinally seek the difference in treatment response according to the presence of widespread pain.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The observational study involved 45 female TMD patients in their 20s. Patients were grouped into localized and widespread pain groups based on the widespread pain index (WPI ≥ 4). Clinical characteristics and levels of comorbidities were analyzed through physical examination and validated questionnaires. Differences between the groups and the power of pre-treatment WPI in predicting pre-treatment comorbidities and post-treatment pain level improvement were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients with widespread pain showed higher somatization and anxiety levels. SF-36 scores were significantly lower and more patients complained of gastrointestinal symptoms. Conventional treatment significantly reduced pain intensity in both groups but less in the widespread pain group. WPI showed significant chances to predict patients showing improvement in pain levels with treatment with a cutoff value of 4. WPI was also effective in differentiating patients that showed a higher level of somatization.

CONCLUSION

Widespread pain index could be effectively applied in differentiating those with a higher level of psychological distress and predicting TMD treatment response with further investigations into its reliability.

Digital pain drawings are a useful and reliable tool for assessing patients with temporomandibular disorders

BACKGROUND

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are characterised by complex symptomatology and their assessment can be enhanced using pain drawings (PD).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the location and extent of pain in people TMD using digital PD, and to explore their association with clinical features. Reliability of pain extent and pain location using PD was also assessed.

METHODS

Forty volunteers with TMD completed two consecutive digital PDs. Clinical features were captured from self-reported questionnaire. Additionally, secondary hyperalgesia was measured using the pressure pain threshold (PPT). The correlation between pain extent and clinical features was investigated using Spearman rank correlation coefficients. Reliability of pain extent was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. The Jaccard index was computed to assess the reliability of pain location.

RESULTS

Analysis of the PDs indicated that people with TMD commonly experience pain in other body regions including the neck, the shoulder and the low back. Except for PPT and pain catastrophising, all other clinical features were significantly correlated with pain extent. The ICCs of pain extent for all body charts were very high (ICCs 95% CI from 0.73 to 0.96), and Bland-Altman plots showed mean biases close to zero with narrow limits of agreement. The reliability of pain location was also supported by Jaccard index mean scores above 0.68.

CONCLUSIONS

People with TMD showed widespread pain, and pain extent was associated with pain intensity, neck and headache-related disability, depression, anxiety, hyperventilation and central sensitivity. The reliability of measuring pain extent and pain location was confirmed.