Transcranial direct current stimulation and exercises for treatment of chronic temporomandibular disorders: a blind randomised-controlled trial

Combining Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation With Non-Invasive Interventions for Chronic Primary Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

A growing number of studies has combined transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with other non-invasive non-pharmacological therapies (NINPT) to enhance effects in pain reduction. However, the efficacy of these combined approaches in treating chronic primary pain (CPP) warrants thorough investigation.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of tDCS in conjunction with other NINPT in alleviating pain severity among CPP patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of tDCS combined with NINPT against control treatments in adult CPP patients. The search spanned multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL.

RESULTS

Our systematic review included 11 RCTs with a total of 449 participants. In our meta-analysis, which comprised 228 participants receiving active-tDCS and 221 receiving sham-tDCS, we found a significant reduction in pain intensity (Standard Mean Difference = -0.73; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = -1.18 to -0.27; P = .002) with the use of active-tDCS combined with NINPT.

CONCLUSION

These findings substantiate the therapeutic potential of combining tDCS with other NINPT, highlighting it as an effective treatment modality for reducing pain intensity in CPP patients.

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.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Orthopedic Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) appears to alleviate chronic pain via a brain-down mechanism. Although several review studies have examined the effects of tDCS on patients with chronic pain, no systematic review or meta-analysis has comprehensively analyzed the effects of tDCS on chronic orthopedic joint pain in one study. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of tDCS for pain reduction in chronic orthopedic patients; (2) Methods: A comprehensive search of five electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane) was performed. Only randomized controlled trials that compared tDCS with a control intervention were included. Eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria. We identified four categories of chronic orthopedic pain: knee (k = 8), lower back (k = 7), shoulder (k = 2), and orofacial pain (k = 1). Random effect models were utilized, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted in the presence of significant heterogeneity. Studies within each pain condition were further classified according to the number of treatment sessions: 1-5 sessions, 6-10 sessions, and >10 sessions.; (3) Results: Significant reductions in chronic orthopedic joint pain were observed following tDCS compared to controls for knee (g = 0.59, p = 0.005), lower back (g = 1.14, p = 0.005), and shoulder (g = 1.17, p = 0.020). Subgroup analyses showed pain reductions after 6-10 tDCS sessions for knee pain and after 1-5 and >10 sessions for lower back pain; (4) Conclusions: tDCS could be considered a potential stand-alone or supplemental therapy for chronic knee and lower back pain. The effectiveness of tDCS treatment varies depending on the number of treatment sessions. Our findings suggest the importance of implementing individualized treatment plans when considering tDCS for chronic pain conditions.

Effects of a program consisting of strain/counterstrain technique, phonophoresis, heat therapy, and stretching in patients with temporomandibular joint dysfunction: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

The present study was conceptualized as a pilot study to examine the effects of a 3-week program consisting of strain/counterstrain technique (SCST), phonophoresis, heat therapy, and stretching exercises on pain and functions in patients with temporomandibular dysfunction (TMD).

METHODS

Seven participants (mean age 25.85 years) diagnosed with TMD having pain in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) area with decreased jaw opening were recruited for the study. Treatment interventions consisting of SCST, phonophoresis (ultrasound gel mixed with diclofenac gel), heat therapy, and stretching (mouth-opening) exercises were performed 3 days a week for 3 weeks. SCST was performed on the masseter, medial, and lateral pterygoid muscles. No control group was present in the study.

RESULTS

Paired samples t test revealed a significant difference in numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (decreased by 50%, P < .001) and jaw functional limitation scale (JFLS) (reduced by 59.58%, P < .001) scores after 3 weeks of intervention. A large effect size (Cohen d = -3.00 for NPRS and -3.16 for JFLS) was observed for both variables. No correlation (R = 0) was found between the baseline values of NPRS and JFLS.

CONCLUSION

A 3-week program consisting of SCST, phonophoresis, heat therapy, and stretching exercises was effective in reducing the pain and improving the functions related to TMJ in patients suffering from TMD. However, a randomized controlled trial is needed to reach a definite conclusion.

Time since onset might be of essence: A recommendation to assess the effects of combination of non-pharmacological neuromodulatory approaches at early stage since symptoms onset

In the past decade researchers began to assess the potential beneficial effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) combined with a behavioral task as a treatment approach for various medical conditions. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied to the motor cortex combined with another treatment approach has been assessed as analgesic treatment in neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain conditions, and was found to exert only modest pain relief. Our group results show that combined tDCS and mirror therapy dramatically reduced acute phantom limb pain intensity with long-lasting effects, potentially preventing pain chronification. A review of the scientific literature indicates that our approach differs from that of others: We applied the intervention at the acute stage of the disease, whereas other studies applied the intervention in patients whose disease had already been established. We suggest that the timing of administration of the combined intervention is critical. Unlike in patients with chronic painful condition, in which the maladaptive plasticity associated with pain chronification and chronicity is well-consolidated, early treatment at the acute pain stage may be more successful in counterbalancing the not-yet consolidated maladaptive plasticity. We encourage the research community to test our hypothesis, both in the treatment of pain, and beyond.

Training-induced hypoalgesia and its potential underlying mechanisms

It is well-established that a single bout of exercise can reduce pain sensitivity (i.e., exercise-induced hypoalgesia) in healthy individuals. However, exercise-induced hypoalgesia is often impaired in individuals with chronic pain. This might suggest that repeated bouts of exercise (i.e., exercise training) are needed in order to induce a reduction in pain sensitivity (i.e., training-induced hypoalgesia) among individuals with chronic pain, given that a single bout of exercise seems to be insufficient to alter pain. However, the effect of repeated bouts of exercise on pain sensitivity and its underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to provide an overview of the existing literature on training-induced hypoalgesia, as well as discuss potential mechanisms of training-induced hypoalgesia and offer considerations for future research. Existing literature suggests that training interventions may induce hypoalgesic adaptations potentially driven by central nervous system and immune system factors. However, the limited number of randomized controlled trials available, along with the lack of understanding of underlying mechanisms, provides a rationale for future research.

Transcranial direct current stimulation of 3 cortical targets is no more effective than placebo as treatment for fibromyalgia: a double-blind sham-controlled clinical trial

ABSTRACT

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex seem to improve pain and other symptoms of fibromyalgia (FM), although the evidence on the effectiveness of tDCS and the optimal stimulation target is not robust enough. Our main objective was to establish the optimal area of stimulation, comparing the 2 classical targets and a novel pain-related area, the operculo-insular cortex, in a sham-controlled trial. Using a double-blind design, we randomly assigned 130 women with FM to 4 treatment groups (M1, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, operculo-insular cortex, and sham), each receiving fifteen 20-minute sessions of 2 mA anodal tDCS over the left hemisphere. Our primary outcome was pain intensity. The secondary outcomes were the other core symptoms of FM (fatigue, mood, cognitive and sleep disorders, and hyperalgesia measured by the pressure pain threshold). We performed the assessment at 3 time points (before, immediately after treatment, and at 6 months follow-up). The linear mixed-model analysis of variances showed significant treatment effects across time for clinical pain and for fatigue, cognitive and sleep disturbances, and experimental pain, irrespective of the group. In mood, the 3 active tDCS groups showed a significantly larger improvement in anxiety and depression than sham. Our findings provide evidence of a placebo effect, support the use of tDCS for the treatment of affective symptoms, and challenge the effectiveness of tDCS as treatment of FM.

Nonpharmacological Interventions for Pain in Patients with Temporomandibular Joint Disorders: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aimed to compare the efficacy of nonpharmacological therapies for painful temporomandibular joint disorders. The protocol was registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42020171364). The search was performed on the electronic databases PubMed, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials, and Web of Science. The eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials in patients diagnosed with painful temporomandibular joint disorders comparing the pain relief between conventional treatment and nonpharmacological therapies such as acupuncture, physiotherapy, low-level laser, and massage. Fourteen articles were included in this review. At the overall bias of the studies included, 71.42% exhibited some concerns and 28.57% had high risk. The efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions was found to be moderate in the short term and variable in the long term for pain reduction in patients with temporomandibular joint disorders. The evidence pointed out that acupuncture, laser therapy, and physiotherapy are potentially useful interventions for pain relief in patients with temporomandibular joint disorders. However, there is a lack of consistency and short-term follow-up in the studies to determine the lasting of such effect.

Neurophysiological aspects of isotonic exercises in temporomandibular joint dysfunction syndrome

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to investigate the electroneurophysiological aspects of volunteers with temporomandibular disorders before and after performing isotonic exercises for pain relief and self-care guidelines.

METHODS

The study was a parallel controlled randomized controlled trial under protocol 1,680,920. The inclusion criteria were age between 18 and 60 years, muscle temporomandibular dysfunction with or without limitation of mouth opening and self-reported pain with scores between 4 and 10. The individuals were randomized into experimental group and control. Twenty-three volunteers participated in the study, most of then were female. Control group had 11 and experimental group 12 individuals. Dropouts occurred in both groups, two in the experimental group and three in the control group. Since there were an intergroup imbalance the power density was analysed just in experimental group. Electroencephalographic recording was performed before and after the interventions, using the 32-channel apparatus, with sample frequency of 600 Hz and impedance of 5 kΩ. The data were processed through the MATLAB computer program. The individual records filtered off-line, using bandpass between 0.5 and 50 Hz. Epochs of 1,710 ms were created and the calculation of the absolute power density calculated by means of the fast Fourier transform. The statistical approach was inferential and quantitative.

RESULTS

The alpha power density analyzed presented a difference, but not significant, when compared in the two moments.

CONCLUSION

According to this study, isotonic exercises performed to reduce pain provided a small increase in alpha power density in the left temporal, parietal and occipital regions.

Noninvasive motor cortex stimulation effects on quantitative sensory testing in healthy and chronic pain subjects: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

One of the potential mechanisms of motor cortex stimulation by noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) effects on pain is through the restoration of the defective endogenous inhibitory pain pathways. However, there are still limited data on quantitative sensory testing (QST), including conditioned pain modulation (CPM), supporting this mechanism. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of noninvasive motor cortex stimulation on pain perception as indexed by changes in QST outcomes. Database searches were conducted until July 2019 to include randomized controlled trials that performed sham-controlled NIBS on the motor cortex in either the healthy and/or pain population and assessed the QST and CPM. Quality of studies was assessed through the Cochrane tool. We calculated the Hedge's effect sizes of QST and CPM outcomes and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and performed random-effects meta-analyses. Thirty-eight studies were included (1178 participants). We found significant increases of pain threshold in healthy subjects (ES = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.02-0.31, I2 = 22.2%) and pain populations (ES = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.15-0.80, I2 = 68.8%), and homogeneous higher CPM effect (pain ratings reduction) in healthy subjects (ES = -0.39, 95% CI = -0.64 to -0.14, I2 = 17%) and pain populations (ES = -0.35, 95% CI = -0.60 to -0.11, I2 = 0%) in the active NIBS group compared with sham. These results support the idea of top-down modulation of endogenous pain pathways by motor cortex stimulation as one of the main mechanisms of pain reduction assessed by QST, which could be a useful predictive and prognostic biomarker for chronic pain personalized treatment with NIBS.

Transcranial direct current stimulation for spinal cord injury-associated neuropathic pain

Several types of pain occur following spinal cord injury (SCI); however, neuropathic pain (NP) is one of the most intractable. Invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation techniques have been studied in clinical trials to treat chronic NP following SCI. The evidence for invasive stimulation including motor cortex and deep brain stimulation via the use of implanted electrodes to reduce SCI-related NP remains limited, due to the small scale of existing studies. The lower risk of complications associated with non-invasive stimulation, including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), provide potentially attractive alternative central neuromodulation techniques. Compared to rTMS, tDCS is technically easier to apply, more affordable, available, and potentially feasible for home use. Accordingly, several new studies have investigated the efficacy of tDCS to treat NP after SCI. In this review, articles relating to the mechanisms, clinical efficacy and safety of tDCS on SCI-related NP were searched from inception to December 2019. Six clinical trials, including five randomized placebo-controlled trials and one prospective controlled trial, were included for evidence specific to the efficacy of tDCS for treating SCI-related NP. The mechanisms of action of tDCS are complex and not fully understood. Several factors including stimulation parameters and individual patient characteristics may affect the efficacy of tDCS intervention. Current evidence to support the efficacy of utilizing tDCS for relieving chronic NP after SCI remains limited. Further strong evidence is needed to confirm the efficacy of tDCS intervention for treating SCI-related NP.

Is Irritable Bowel Syndrome Considered in Clinical Trials on Physical Therapy Applied to Patients with Temporo-Mandibular Disorders? A Scoping Review

The aim of the current scoping review was to identify if the presence of irritable bowel syndrome was included as eligibility criteria of participants included in clinical trials investigating the effects of physical therapy in individuals with temporomandibular pain disorders (TMDs). A systematic electronic literature search in the Web of Science database was conducted. Scientifically relevant, randomized clinical trials (those cited in other studies at least 5 times, or clinical trials published in high-impact journals, i.e., first and second quartiles (Q1-Q2) of any category of the Journal Citation Report (JCR)) evaluating the effects of any physical therapy intervention in patients with TMDs were included. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the selected trials. Authors affiliated to a clinical or non-clinical institution, total number of citations, objective, sex/gender, age, and eligibility criteria in each article were extracted and analyzed independently by two authors. From a total of 98 identified articles, 12 and 19 clinical trials were included according to the journal citation criterion or JCR criterion, respectively. After removing duplicates, a total of 23 trials were included. The PEDro score ranged from 4 to 8 (mean: 6.26, SD: 1.48). Based on the eligibility criteria of the trials systematically reviewed, none considered the presence of comorbid irritable bowel syndrome in patients with TMDs. The comorbidity between TMDs and irritable bowel syndrome is not considered within the eligibility criteria of participants in highly cited clinical trials, or published in a high-impact journal, investigating the effects of physical therapy in TMDs.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Accelerates The Onset of Exercise-Induced Hypoalgesia: A Randomized Controlled Study

Exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIH) describes acute reductions in pain that occur following exercise. Current evidence suggests that the magnitude of EIH is small-to-moderate at best, warranting exploration of novel avenues to bolster these effects. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to relieve pain and represents a promising intervention that may enhance EIH. This study aimed to determine whether anodal tDCS of the primary motor cortex (M1) can augment EIH in healthy individuals experiencing experimentally-induced musculoskeletal pain. Twenty-four healthy subjects attended 2 experimental sessions ("Day 0" and "Day 2"). On Day 0, subjects were injected with nerve growth factor into their right extensor carpi radialis brevis to induce persistent elbow pain. On Day 2, each subject received active or sham tDCS over M1 followed by an isometric grip exercise. Pain intensity, muscle soreness, sensitivity (pressure pain thresholds), and conditioned pain modulation were assessed prior to the nerve growth factor injection, on Day 2 before tDCS, immediately post-exercise, and 15 minutes post-exercise. Active tDCS expedited the onset of EIH, inducing immediate reductions in pain intensity that were not present until 15 minutes post-exercise in the sham group. However, active tDCS did not reduce muscle soreness or sensitivity when compared to sham tDCS. PERSPECTIVE: These findings suggest that active tDCS accelerates the onset of EIH in healthy individuals experiencing experimentally-induced pain. This may represent a promising means of enhancing adherence to exercise protocols. However, larger randomised controlled trials in persistent pain populations are required to confirm the clinical impact of these findings.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined With Therapeutic Exercise in Chronic Low Back Pain: Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Although some studies have shown the clinical benefits of therapeutic exercise in chronic nonspecific low back pain, the effect sizes are generally small to moderate and recurrence rates are high. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been used to modulate pain-processing systems and motor outputs and has the potential to optimize the clinical benefits of therapeutic exercise. However, evidence for this combination is still lacking. The purpose of this protocol for a randomized clinical trial is to investigate whether the combination of tDCS and therapeutic exercise is more effective in relieving pain than therapeutic exercise alone.

METHODS

This 2-arm, randomized controlled clinical trial will take place at the Federal University of Piauí, Brazil. Sixty patients will be randomized into 2 groups to receive tDCS (real/sham) + exercise therapies for 12 sessions over a period of 4 weeks. Pain intensity, sensory and affective aspects of pain, physical functioning, kinesiophobia, and global perceived effect will be recorded before treatment and at 4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after randomization. Data will be collected by an examiner unaware of (blind to) the treatment allocation.

IMPACT

This trial can potentially provide important information and assist in clinical decision-making on the combined use of tDCS to optimize the clinical benefits of therapeutic exercise in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

Noninvasive brain stimulation combined with exercise in chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The use of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) combined with exercise could produce synergistic effects on chronic pain conditions. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NIBS combined with exercise to treat chronic pain as well as to describe the parameters used to date in this combination.Methods: The search was carried out in Medline, Central, Scopus, Embase, and Pedro until November 2019. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies reporting the use of noninvasive brain stimulation and exercise on patients with chronic pain were selected and revised.Results: The authors included eight studies (RCTs), reporting eight comparisons (219 participants). Authors found a significant and homogeneous pain decrease (ES: -0.62, 95% CI:-0.89 to -0.34; I2 = 0.0%) in favor of the combined intervention compared to sham NIBS + exercise, predominantly by excitatory (anodal tDCS/rTMS) motor cortex stimulation. Regarding NIBS techniques, the pooled effect sizes were significant for both tDCS (ES: -0.59, 95% CI: -0.89 to -0.29, I2 = 0.0%) and rTMS (ES: -0.76, 95% CI: -1.41 to -0.11, I2 = 0.0%).Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests a significant moderate to large effects of the NIBS and exercise combination in chronic pain. The authors discuss the potential theoretical framework for this synergistic effect.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Improve the Dysfunction of Descending Pain Modulatory System Related to Opioids in Chronic Non-cancer Pain: An Integrative Review of Neurobiology and Meta-Analysis

Background: Opioid long-term therapy can produce tolerance, opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH), and it induces dysfunction in pain descending pain inhibitory system (DPIS). Objectives: This integrative review with meta-analysis aimed: (i) To discuss the potential mechanisms involved in analgesic tolerance and opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH). (ii) To examine how the opioid can affect the function of DPIS. (ii) To show evidence about the tDCS as an approach to treat acute and chronic pain. (iii) To discuss the effect of tDCS on DPIS and how it can counter-regulate the OIH. (iv) To draw perspectives for the future about the tDCS effects as an approach to improve the dysfunction in the DPIS in chronic non-cancer pain. Methods: Relevant published randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing active (irrespective of the stimulation protocol) to sham tDCS for treating chronic non-cancer pain were identified, and risk of bias was assessed. We searched trials in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane trials databases. tDCS protocols accepted were application in areas of the primary motor cortex (M1), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), or occipital area. Results: Fifty-nine studies were fully reviewed, and 24 with moderate to the high-quality methodology were included. tDCS improved chronic pain with a moderate effect size [pooled standardized mean difference; -0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.91 to -0.41]. On average, active protocols led to 27.26% less pain at the end of treatment compared to sham [95% CI; 15.89-32.90%]. Protocol varied in terms of anodal or cathodal stimulation, areas of stimulation (M1 and DLPFC the most common), number of sessions (from 5 to 20) and current intensity (from 1 to 2 mA). The time of application was 20 min in 92% of protocols. Conclusion: In comparison with sham stimulation, tDCS demonstrated a superior effect in reducing chronic pain conditions. They give perspectives that the top-down neuromodulator effects of tDCS are a promising approach to improve management in refractory chronic not-cancer related pain and to enhance dysfunctional neuronal circuitries involved in the DPIS and other pain dimensions and improve pain control with a therapeutic opioid-free. However, further studies are needed to determine individualized protocols according to a biopsychosocial perspective.

The efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation for chronic orofacial pain: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) have been described as promising alternatives to treat different pain syndromes. This study evaluated the effects of TMS and tDCS in the treatment of chronic orofacial pain, through a systematic review.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed in major databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, LILACS, BBO, Open Gray and CINAHL. The eligibility criteria comprised randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that applied TMS or tDCS to treat chronic orofacial pain. The variables analyzed were pain, functional limitation, quality of life, tolerance to treatment, somatosensory changes, and adverse effects. The risk of bias was assessed through the Cochrane Collaboration tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated through GRADE. The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018090774).

RESULTS

The electronic search resulted in 636 studies. Thereafter, the eligibility criteria were applied and the duplicates removed, resulting in eight RCTs (four TMS and four tDCS). The findings of these studies suggest that rTMS applied to the Motor cortex (M1), the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) provide adequate orofacial pain relief. Two studies reported significant pain improvement with tDCS applied over M1 while the other two failed to demonstrate significant effects compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

rTMS, applied to M1, DLPFC or S2, is a promising approach for the treatment of chronic orofacial pain. Moreover, tDCS targeting M1 seems to be also effective in chronic orofacial pain treatment. The included studies used a wide variety of therapeutic protocols. In addition, most of them used small sample sizes, with a high risk of biases in their methodologies, thus producing a low quality of evidence. The results indicate that further research should be carried out with caution and with better-standardized therapeutic protocols.

An updated review on pathophysiology and management of burning mouth syndrome with endocrinological, psychological and neuropathic perspectives

Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a chronic oro-facial pain disorder of unknown cause. It is more common in peri- and post-menopausal women, and sex hormone dysregulation is believed to be an important causative factor. Psychosocial events often trigger or exacerbate symptoms, and persons with BMS appear to be predisposed towards anxiety and depression. Atrophy of small nerve fibres in the tongue epithelium has been reported, and potential neuropathic mechanisms for BMS are now widely investigated. Historically, BMS was thought to comprise endocrinological, psychosocial and neuropathic components. Neuroprotective steroids and glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor family ligands may have pivotal roles in the peripheral mechanisms associated with atrophy of small nerve fibres. Denervation of chorda tympani nerve fibres that innervate fungiform buds leads to alternative trigeminal innervation, which results in dysgeusia and burning pain when eating hot foods. With regard to the central mechanism of BMS, depletion of neuroprotective steroids alters the brain network-related mood and pain modulation. Peripheral mechanistic studies support the use of topical clonazepam and capsaicin for the management of BMS, and some evidence supports the use of cognitive behavioural therapy. Hormone replacement therapy may address the causes of BMS, although adverse effects prevent its use as a first-line treatment. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) may have important benefits, and well-designed controlled studies are expected. Other treatment options to be investigated include brain stimulation and TSPO (translocator protein 18 kDa) ligands.

Latin American and Caribbean consensus on noninvasive central nervous system neuromodulation for chronic pain management (LAC2-NIN-CP)

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Introduction:

Chronic pain (CP) is highly prevalent and generally undertreated health condition. Noninvasive brain stimulation may contribute to decrease pain intensity and influence other aspects related to CP.

Objective:

To provide consensus-based recommendations for the use of noninvasive brain stimulation in clinical practice.

Methods:

Systematic review of the literature searching for randomized clinical trials followed by consensus panel. Recommendations also involved a cost-estimation study.

Results:

The systematic review wielded 24 transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and 22 repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) studies. The following recommendations were provided: (1) Level A for anodal tDCS over the primary motor cortex (M1) in fibromyalgia, and level B for peripheral neuropathic pain, abdominal pain, and migraine; bifrontal (F3/F4) tDCS and M1 high-definition (HD)-tDCS for fibromyalgia; Oz/Cz tDCS for migraine and for secondary benefits such as improvement in quality of life, decrease in anxiety, and increase in pressure pain threshold; (2) level A recommendation for high-frequency (HF) rTMS over M1 for fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, and level B for myofascial or musculoskeletal pain, complex regional pain syndrome, and migraine; (3) level A recommendation against the use of anodal M1 tDCS for low back pain; and (4) level B recommendation against the use of HF rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in the control of pain.

Conclusion:

Transcranial DCS and rTMS are recommended techniques to be used in the control of CP conditions, with low to moderate analgesic effects, and no severe adverse events. These recommendations are based on a systematic review of the literature and a consensus made by experts in the field. Readers should use it as part of the resources available to decision-making.

Non-invasive brain stimulation in chronic orofacial pain: a systematic review

Background

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are non-invasive brain stimulation techniques that are being explored as therapeutic alternatives for the management of various chronic pain conditions.

Objective

The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy of TMS and tDCS in reducing clinical pain intensity in chronic orofacial pain (OFP) disorders. The secondary objectives are to describe adverse effects, duration of relief, and TMS/tDCS methodologies used in chronic OFP disorders.

Methods

A search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were 1) population: adults diagnosed with chronic OFP including neuropathic and non-neuropathic disorders; 2) intervention: active TMS or tDCS stimulation regardless of the used protocol; 3) comparison: sham TMS or tDCS stimulation; and 4) outcome: primary outcome was patient reported pain intensity. Secondary outcomes were duration of pain relief, adverse effects, and methodological parameters. Risk of bias and quality of study reporting were also assessed.

Results

A total of 556 individual citations were identified by the search strategy, with 14 articles meeting selection criteria (TMS=11; tDCS=3). Data were obtained for a total of 228 patients. Included OFP disorders were trigeminal neuralgia, trigeminal neuropathy, burning mouth syndrome, atypical facial pain, and temporomandibular disorders. Significant pain reductions were obtained in both techniques. More number of sessions yielded to more durable effects. Overall, high risk of bias and poor study quality were found.

Conclusion

TMS and tDCS appear to be safe and promising alternatives to reduce pain intensity in different chronic OFP disorders. Additional research effort is needed to reduce bias, improve quality, and characterize optimal brain stimulation parameters to promote their efficacy.

Motor Cortex Stimulation for Deafferentation Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Since the early 1990s, motor cortex stimulation (MCS) has been a unique treatment modality for patients with drug-resistant deafferentation pain. While underpowered studies and case reports have limited definitive, data-driven analysis of MCS in the past, recent research has brought new clarity to the MCS literature and has helped identify appropriate indications for MCS and its long-term efficacy.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review, new research in MCS, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are analyzed and compared with historical landmark papers. Currently, MCS is effective in providing relief to 40-64% of patients, with decreasing analgesic effect over time addressed by altering stimulation settings. rTMS and tDCS, two historic, non-invasive stimulation techniques, are providing new alternatives for the treatment of deafferentation pain, with rTMS finding utility in identifying MCS responders. Future advances in electrode arrays, neuro-navigation, and high-definition tDCS hold promise in providing pain relief to growing numbers of patients. Deafferentation pain is severe, disabling, and remains a challenge for patients and providers alike. Over the last several years, the MCS literature has been revitalized with studies and meta-analyses demonstrating MCS effectiveness and providing guidance in identifying responders. At the same time, rTMS and tDCS, two time-honored non-invasive stimulation techniques, are finding new utility in managing deafferentation pain and identifying good MCS candidates. As the number of potential therapies grow, the clinician's role is shifting to personalizing treatment to the unique pain of each patient. With new treatment modalities, this form of personalized medicine is more possible than ever before.

Tratamento para disfunções temporomandibulares: uma revisão sistemática

RESUMO Introdução: A disfunção temporomandibular (DTM) é complexa e multifatorial. São encontrados, na literatura, estudos que comparam diferentes métodos de tratamento. Objetivo: Investigar estudos sobre o tratamento das disfunções temporomandibulares (DTMs) nas diversas áreas da saúde, avaliando a eficácia das técnicas empregadas, principalmente no que se refere ao uso da terapia miofuncional orofacial. Estratégia de pesquisa: Os artigos compilados neste estudo foram selecionados por meio da base de dados PubMed, utilizando os descritores “temporomandibular disorders and oral motor therapy”, “orofacial myofunctional therapy and temporomandibular disorders” e “temporomandibular disorders and myofunctional rehabilitation”. O levantamento realizado limitou-se aos artigos publicado nos idiomas Inglês e Português, entre janeiro de 2006 e dezembro de 2016. Critérios de seleção: Foram incluídos artigos sobre os tratamentos das DTMs associados aos exercícios musculares e/ou terapias manuais. Publicações sem acesso completo, repetidas por sobreposição das palavras-chave, revisões de literatura, cartas ao editor e não relacionadas diretamente ao tema foram excluídas. Resultados: Dos 102 estudos selecionados, 22 atenderam aos critérios estabelecidos. Em geral, a maioria dos tratamentos descritos apresentou efeitos benéficos para pacientes com DTMs. Foi observada grande variabilidade da metodologia adotada para a aplicação e verificação dos efeitos dos tratamentos e somente poucos estudos fizeram uso de grupo controle. Conclusão: Apesar do crescimento no número de pesquisas sobre DTMs, ainda não é possível estabelecer qual a melhor técnica de tratamento. Após análise dos artigos selecionados, observou-se que as técnicas combinadas de terapia (ex.: exercício associado ao uso de equipamento para redução da dor) produzem melhores resultados, com maior redução da dor e melhora da mobilidade mandibular.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines

Low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in humans, encompassing transcranial direct current (tDCS), transcutaneous spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS), transcranial alternating current (tACS), and transcranial random noise (tRNS) stimulation or their combinations, appears to be safe. No serious adverse events (SAEs) have been reported so far in over 18,000 sessions administered to healthy subjects, neurological and psychiatric patients, as summarized here. Moderate adverse events (AEs), as defined by the necessity to intervene, are rare, and include skin burns with tDCS due to suboptimal electrode-skin contact. Very rarely mania or hypomania was induced in patients with depression (11 documented cases), yet a causal relationship is difficult to prove because of the low incidence rate and limited numbers of subjects in controlled trials. Mild AEs (MAEs) include headache and fatigue following stimulation as well as prickling and burning sensations occurring during tDCS at peak-to-baseline intensities of 1-2mA and during tACS at higher peak-to-peak intensities above 2mA. The prevalence of published AEs is different in studies specifically assessing AEs vs. those not assessing them, being higher in the former. AEs are frequently reported by individuals receiving placebo stimulation. The profile of AEs in terms of frequency, magnitude and type is comparable in healthy and clinical populations, and this is also the case for more vulnerable populations, such as children, elderly persons, or pregnant women. Combined interventions (e.g., co-application of drugs, electrophysiological measurements, neuroimaging) were not associated with further safety issues. Safety is established for low-intensity 'conventional' TES defined as <4mA, up to 60min duration per day. Animal studies and modeling evidence indicate that brain injury could occur at predicted current densities in the brain of 6.3-13A/m2 that are over an order of magnitude above those produced by tDCS in humans. Using AC stimulation fewer AEs were reported compared to DC. In specific paradigms with amplitudes of up to 10mA, frequencies in the kHz range appear to be safe. In this paper we provide structured interviews and recommend their use in future controlled studies, in particular when trying to extend the parameters applied. We also discuss recent regulatory issues, reporting practices and ethical issues. These recommendations achieved consensus in a meeting, which took place in Göttingen, Germany, on September 6-7, 2016 and were refined thereafter by email correspondence.

Strategies for replacing non-invasive brain stimulation sessions: recommendations for designing neurostimulation clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Despite the potential impact of missed visits on the outcomes of neuromodulation treatments, it is not clear how this issue has been addressed in clinical trials. Given this gap in the literature, we reviewed articles on non-invasive brain stimulation in participants with depression or chronic pain, and investigated how missed visits were handled. Areas covered: We performed a search on PUBMED/MEDLINE using the keywords: 'tDCS', 'transcranial direct current stimulation', 'transcranial magnetic stimulation', 'depression', and 'pain'. We included studies with a minimum of five participants who were diagnosed with depression or chronic pain, who underwent a minimum of five tDCS or TMS sessions. A total of 181 studies matched our inclusion criteria, 112 on depression and 69 on chronic pain. Of these, only fifteen (8%) articles reported or had a protocol addressing missed visits. This review demonstrates that, in most of the trials, there is no reported plan to handle missed visits. Expert commentary: Based on our findings and previous studies, we developed suggestions on how to handle missed visits in neuromodulation protocols. A maximum of 20% of missing sessions should be allowed before excluding a patient and these sessions should be replaced at the end of the stimulation period.

Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

A group of European experts was commissioned by the European Chapter of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology to gather knowledge about the state of the art of the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) from studies published up until September 2016, regarding pain, Parkinson's disease, other movement disorders, motor stroke, poststroke aphasia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, consciousness disorders, Alzheimer's disease, tinnitus, depression, schizophrenia, and craving/addiction. The evidence-based analysis included only studies based on repeated tDCS sessions with sham tDCS control procedure; 25 patients or more having received active treatment was required for Class I, while a lower number of 10-24 patients was accepted for Class II studies. Current evidence does not allow making any recommendation of Level A (definite efficacy) for any indication. Level B recommendation (probable efficacy) is proposed for: (i) anodal tDCS of the left primary motor cortex (M1) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in fibromyalgia; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in major depressive episode without drug resistance; (iii) anodal tDCS of the right DLPFC (with left DLPFC cathode) in addiction/craving. Level C recommendation (possible efficacy) is proposed for anodal tDCS of the left M1 (or contralateral to pain side, with right orbitofrontal cathode) in chronic lower limb neuropathic pain secondary to spinal cord lesion. Conversely, Level B recommendation (probable inefficacy) is conferred on the absence of clinical effects of: (i) anodal tDCS of the left temporal cortex (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in tinnitus; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left DLPFC (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in drug-resistant major depressive episode. It remains to be clarified whether the probable or possible therapeutic effects of tDCS are clinically meaningful and how to optimally perform tDCS in a therapeutic setting. In addition, the easy management and low cost of tDCS devices allow at home use by the patient, but this might raise ethical and legal concerns with regard to potential misuse or overuse. We must be careful to avoid inappropriate applications of this technique by ensuring rigorous training of the professionals and education of the patients.

Analgesic effect of cathodal transcranial current stimulation over right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in subjects with muscular temporomandibular disorders: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Temporomandibular disorders are a group of orofacial pain conditions that are commonly identified in the general population. Like many other chronic pain conditions, they can be associated with anxiety/depression, which can be related to changes in the activity of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Some studies have demonstrated clinical improvement in subjects with chronic pain who are given therapeutic neuromodulation. Transcranial direct current stimulation is a noninvasive brain stimulation technique that allows the modulation of neuronal membranes. This therapy can enhance or inhibit action potential generation in cortical neurons. In some instances, medications acting in the central nervous system may be helpful despite their adverse side effects. It is important to determine if cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, an area that modulates emotion and motor cortex excitability, has an analgesic effect on chronic temporomandibular disorders pain.

Method/design

The investigators will run a randomized, controlled crossover double blind study with 15 chronic muscular temporomandibular disorder subjects. Each subject will undergo active (1 mA and 2 mA) and sham transcranial direct current stimulation. Inclusion criteria will be determined by the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders questionnaire, with subjects who have a pain visual analogic scale score of greater than 4/10 and whose pain has been present for the previous 6 months, and with a State-Trait Anxiety Inventory score of more than 42. The influence of transcranial direct current stimulation will be assessed through a visual analogic scale, quantitative sensory testing, quantitative electroencephalogram, and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory score.

Discussion

Some studies have demonstrated a strong association between anxiety/depression and chronic pain, where one may be the cause of the other. This is especially true in chronic temporomandibular disorders, and breaking this cycle may have an effect over the symptoms and associated dysfunction. We believe that by inhibiting activity of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex though cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation, there may be a change in both anxiety/depression and pain level. Transcranial direct current stimulation may emerge as a new tool to be considered for managing these patients. We envision that the information obtained from this study will provide a better understanding of the management of chronic temporomandibular disorders.

Trial registration

This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov on 24 May 2014 (Identifier: NCT02152267).