[Quantitative Sensory Testing in the facial area: a review]

Sensory function in the faces of patients with facial palsy: A prospective observational study using quantitative sensory testing

Objectives/Hypothesis

To determine the sensory function of both sides of the face in patients with acute or chronic facial palsy.

Study design

Prospective observational study.

Methods

The standardized quantitative sensory testing (QST) protocol of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS), including thermal or mechanical stimuli (touch, pain, vibration, and pressure), was used to investigate somatosensory function in the faces of patients. A patient-reported outcome measures for the assessment of disturbed facial comfort or facial pain, the facial Clinimetric Evaluation Scale (FaCE) Facial Comfort Subscale, and the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) pain subdomain were used.

Results

A total of 29 patients (22 female, median age of 48 years; 7 acute palsy; 22 chronic palsy; House-Brackmann grade II-VI) were included. The median FaCE Facial Comfort Subscale score and the median SF-36 pain subdomain score were 50 and 100, respectively. Most patients had, at an individual level, a normal sensory function in all or most tests. On average, the frequencies for all parameters were not different between the paretic side and the contralateral side (all p > 0.05). Additionally, when z-scores were used to compare our patient sample with healthy controls from the DFNS reference database, there was no difference between the paretic side and the contralateral side (all p > 0.05). Furthermore, there were no differences between patients with acute facial palsy and those with chronic facial palsy (all p > 0.05). The FaCE Facial Comfort Subscale score and the SF-36 pain subdomain score did not correlate with the QST parameters (all p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Patients with acute or chronic unilateral peripheral facial palsy had normal sensory function on the paretic and contralateral sides compared with the reference values of healthy controls, and there was no significant difference between the sides. The numbness frequently felt in the affected hemiface is not related to a peripheral sensory disorder and is most likely a manifestation of an unsolved cortical somatosensory-motor mismatch.

Somatosensory and Gustatory Profiling in the Orofacial Region

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a standard procedure in medicine to describe sensory patterns in various pathologies. The aim of this prospective clinical study was to define reference values of the trigeminal nerve (V3), including taste qualities, to create a compatibility for sensory loss or gain in pathologies. Fifty-one patients were included, and a standardized testing battery with 11 QST parameters according to the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS) was applied complemented by quantitative gustatory assessments. Significant somatosensory differences were found between the test sites (MDT at the chin, WDT at the lower lip) but no effect was detected for gender, age, and between body types. Taste sensitivity was dependent on concentration, gender (females being more sensitive) and increasing age (for bitter and sour taste). We provide reference values for somatosensory and gustatory testing of the facial area. Our data facilitate the detection of neurosensory abnormalities in the orofacial region. This might also serve as a control setting for COVID-19.

Somatosensory profiles of patients with chronic myogenic temporomandibular disorders in relation to their painDETECT score

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to characterize patients with chronic temporomandibular disorders (TMD) in terms of existing hyperalgesia against cold, heat and pressure.

METHODS

The extent of hyperalgesia for pressure and thermal sensation in TMD patients was determined by the use of the painDETECT questionnaire ("Is cold or heat in this area occasionally painful?" "Does slight pressure in this area, e.g., with a finger, trigger pain?") and experimental somatosensory testing against thermal and pressure stimuli (Quantitative Sensory Testing; QST). In addition, we explored psychological comorbidity among the chronic TMD patients (hospital anxiety and depression scale, HADS-D and coping strategies questionnaire, CSQ).

RESULTS

Nineteen patients with chronic TMD and 38 healthy subjects participated in the study. N = 12 patients had a painDETECT score ≤ 12, n = 3 patients had a painDETECT score of 13-18 and n = 4 patients had a painDETECT score ≥ 19. TMD patients with painDETECT scores ≥19 had moderately, strong or very strong enhancement of thermal and pressure pain perception, whereas patients with painDETECT scores 13-18 and ≤ 12 responded these questions with "never", "hardly noticed" or "slightly painful" (p < 0.05-0.01). With increasing painDETECT scores we found increased hyperalgesia for pressure (p < 0.01) and thermal stimuli (p < 0.05) in QST. The patients with a painDETECT score ≥ 19 showed increased signs of anxiety (p < 0.05), depression (p < 0.01), praying and hoping (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The present study has shown that the PainDETECT questionnaire can be a helpful additional diagnostic tool. Together with QST, the PainDETECT questionnaire detected hyperalgesia for pressure and thermal sensation. Therefore the PainDETECT questionnaire is helpful to decide which TMD patients should undergo QST.