Diagnostic criteria for headache attributed to temporomandibular disorders

Exploring Temporomandibular Disorders (TMDs) and Occlusion Debate in Dentistry: Biting Into Controversy

Some conditions known as temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) affect surrounding muscles and jaw joints. In dentistry, there has been discussion and research on the connection between TMDs and occlusion, which is how the upper and lower teeth meet. Although some dental experts have proposed a direct link between TMDs and occlusion, the specifics of this relationship are still unclear and have many facets. More particularly, the research facets of "occlusion" remain one of the most contentious subjects in TMDs. This abstract aims to provide an overview of TMDs and occlusion, summarizing the key points from the literature. The etiological factors contributing to the TMDs, including occlusal, psychological, and hormonal factors, are also analyzed. The second part of the article includes the concept of malocclusion, emphasizing its significance in masticatory function and overall health. Anterior open and posterior open bites and the potential influence of occlusal factors on TMDs are elucidated.

Obstructive sleep apnea treatment improves temporomandibular disorder pain

PURPOSE

The existence of a bidirectional relationship between poor sleep and pain intensity has been studied, and good sleep quality has been found to be a key factor underlying pain control. The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to observe if OSA treatment provides a reduction in temporo-mandibular disorder (TMD) pain and headache attributed to TMD in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) after 18 months of OSA treatment.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted on consecutive patients suffering from OSA. Patients underwent polysomnography and TMD examination according to the DC/TMD protocol at baseline and after 18 months. Intensity of TMD pain and headache attributed to TMD were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 40 patients (31 men, mean age 51.3 ± 10.3 years), 33 underwent OSA treatment. At the follow-up examination after 18 months, significant improvements in the intensity of pain-related TMD and headache attributed to TMD were observed (p < 0.05). Seven patients did not start treatment for OSA or discontinued treatment. These patients did not show any significant difference in intensity of TMD-pain or headache attributed to TMD after 18 months (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant reductions in intensity of pain-related TMD and headache attributed to TMD were observed in patients with OSA after 18 months of OSA treatment onset, while no difference was observed in subjects not undergoing or discontinuing OSA treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov database with number NCT04948541.

Craniofacial disorders and headaches. A narrative review

OBJECTIVES

Craniofacial- and headache disorders are common co-morbid disorders. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the research discussing craniofacial pain, especially temporomandibular disorders, and its relationship and impact on headaches, as well as suggestions for diagnostic assessment tools and physical therapeutic management strategies.

METHOD

A narrative structured review was performed. A search was conducted in MEDLINE using terms related to craniofacial pain and headaches. Additionally, papers regarding this topic were also extracted from the authors' personal libraries. Any study design (i.e., RCT, observational studies, systematic review, narrative review) that reported the concepts of interest was included, using Covidence. Results were narratively synthesized and described.

RESULTS

From an epidemiological perspective, craniofacial pain and headaches are strongly related and often co-existing. This may be due to the neuroanatomical connection with the trigeminal cervical complex, or due to shared predisposing factors such as age, gender, and psychosocial factors. Pain drawings, questionnaires, and physical tests can be used to determine the cause of pain, as well as other perpetuating factors in patients with headaches and craniofacial pain. The evidence supports different forms of exercise and a combination of hands-on and hands-off strategies aimed at both the craniofacial pain as well as the headache.

CONCLUSION

Headaches may be caused or aggravated by different disorders in the craniofacial region. Proper use of terminology and classification may help in understanding these complaints. Future research should look into the specific craniofacial areas and how headaches may arise from problems from those regions. (249 words).

A rose by another name? Characteristics that distinguish headache secondary to temporomandibular disorder from headache that is comorbid with temporomandibular disorder

ABSTRACT

Co-occurring pain conditions that affect overlapping body regions are complicated by the distinction between primary vs secondary pain conditions. We investigate the occurrence of headache and painful temporomandibular disorder (TMD) in a community-based, cross-sectional study of US adults in the Orofacial Pain: Prospective Evaluation and Risk Assessment (OPPERA-II) study. A specific goal was to determine whether headache attributed to TMD is separable from primary headache. Using DC/TMD and International Classification of Headache Disorders-third edition criteria, 3 groups of individuals were created: (a) headache without TMD; (b) headache comorbid with TMD; and (c) headache attributed to TMD. Regression models compared study groups according to demographic and comorbid characteristics, and post hoc contrasts tested for differences. Descriptive statistics and Cohen d effect size were computed, by group, for each predictor variable. Differences in continuous predictors were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance. Nearly all demographic and comorbid variables distinguished the combined headache and TMD groups from the group with headache alone. Relative to the reference group with primary headache alone, markers related to headache, TMD, somatic pain processing, psychosocial, and health conditions were substantially greater in both headache comorbid with TMD and headache attributed to TMD, attesting to their qualitative similarities. However, effect sizes relative to the reference group were large for headache comorbid with TMD and larger again for headache attributed to TMD, attesting to their separability in quantitative terms. In summary, the presence of overlapping painful TMD and headache adds substantially to the biopsychosocial burden of headache and points to the importance of comprehensive assessment and differential management.

Psychosocial factors associated with pain outcomes in patients with painful temporomandibular disorders and headaches

The objective of this study was to assess the association between psychosocial factors (in terms of anxiety, somatization, depression, and optimism) and pain (in terms of headache pain intensity and pain-related disability), in patients with a painful temporomandibular disorder (TMD) and one of the following headache types: migraine, tension-type headache (TTH), or headache attributed to TMD, corrected for the influence of bruxism. A retrospective study was conducted at an orofacial pain and dysfunction (OPD) clinic. Inclusion criteria were painful TMD, with migraine, TTH, and/or headache attributed to TMD. Linear regressions were performed to assess the influence of psychosocial variables on pain intensity and on pain-related disability, stratified per headache type. The regression models were corrected for bruxism and the presence of multiple headache types. A total of 323 patients (61% female; mean age 42.9, SD 14.4 years) were included. Headache pain intensity only had significant associations in TMD-pain patients with headache attributed to TMD, and anxiety showed the strongest relation (β = 0.353) with pain intensity. Pain-related disability was most strongly associated with depression in TMD-pain patients with TTH (β = 0.444), and with somatization in patients with headache attributed to TMD (β = 0.399). In conclusion, the influence of psychosocial factors on headache pain intensity and pain-related disability depends on the headache type presenting.

Are central sensitization symptoms and psychosocial alterations interfering in the association between painful TMD, migraine, and headache attributed to TMD?

OBJECTIVE

To determine if somatosensory function and symptoms related to central sensitization (CS) differed in individuals with painful temporomandibular disorders (TMD) according to the presence of migraine (MIG) or MIG + headache attributed to TMD (HAT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study evaluated 92 adults (20-65 years), presenting painful TMD. Standard diagnostic criteria were applied to classification of painful TMD, MIG, and HAT. CS was assessed through the central sensitization inventory (CSI), wind-up ratio (WUR), pressure pain thresholds (PPT), and the conditioned pain modulation test (CPM). Psychosocial factors were evaluated by validated instruments.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference regarding gender, with more women in the group TMD + MIG + HAT (p = 0.028). TMD + MIG and TMD + MIG + HAT had significantly lower PPTs than the TMD group. No group differences were found for the WUR, CPM, or CSI. TMD + MIG + HAT had higher chronic pain intensity (p = 0.001), disability points (p = 0.045), graded chronic pain scale (p = 0.007), and higher somatization (NSPS) scores (p = 0.012), compared to the other groups.

CONCLUSION

Mechanical hyperalgesia was more pronounced in the group with the highest pain and somatization scores, while CPM and WUR did not differ between groups. Altered somatosensory function and CS may partially underlie the pathophysiology of overlapping TMD pain conditions, pointing towards additive effects of comorbid head pains.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our results demonstrate the importance of considering the association of primary and secondary headaches during TMD assessment and its implications for maintaining the signs and symptoms of CS. This can influence the conduct of treatment, which must be multidisciplinary, and must include management of mechanisms related to CS.

Temporomandibular Joint Syndrome from an Ear Versus Dental-Related Standpoint

Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are a prominent reason for visits to medical providers. The presentation of headaches within this population remains a challenging diagnosis, given the prevalence and overlap of symptomatology of both conditions. The literature demonstrates an undeniable association between headaches and TMD. Regardless of causality and etiology, the literature supports that prompt diagnosis and treatment results in improvement or resolution of symptoms, including headaches. Treatment of TMD headaches should begin with conservative measures, including medical management with NSAIDs, heat therapy, and muscle-stretching exercises.

Facial Ganglia - Anatomy, Symptomatology of Lesions and Biological Relevance

The article summarizes information about the head ganglia (the sympathetic ganglia and in the sensory cranial nerves). Gives а brief historical background on the history issue and relevance of the topic. Characterized by each node with its topography and lesion clinic. The described process of treatment, and prospects for new therapies. Raised the issue of the significance of the defeat ganglia, namely, the suffering of the sick and forced treatment costs (due to the complex differential diagnosis). In a biological sense, pain first appears in chordates and during evolution, as well as transformations of the brain and spinal cord, it acquires new types, localization and significance for the performance of a living organism. And facial pain, being a nosology with a multidisciplinary approach in diagnosis and treatment, demonstrates both its complexity and importance in human life.

Standardized palpation of the temporalis muscle evoke referred pain and sensations in individuals without TMD

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine if standardized palpations of the temporalis muscle evoke referred pain and/or sensations in individuals without TMD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a randomized, single-blinded study. The mechanical sensitivity of the right temporalis muscle was assessed in 32 participants without TMD with nine different stimulations to 15 test sites using palpometers (different stimulus intensities (0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 kg) and durations (2, 5, and 10 s). After each stimulus, participants were asked to score perceived pain intensity and intensity of unpleasantness on a 0-100 numeric rating scale as an indicator of mechanical sensitivity in the temporalis muscle and to indicate any areas of referred pain/sensations on a body chart.

RESULTS

Pain intensity significantly differed between palpation durations, intensities, and test sites (P < 0.001). In contrast, unpleasantness significantly differed between palparation duration and intensities (P < 0.001), but not test sites. Participants more frequently reported referred pain/sensations evoked by the 10-s (34.4%) as opposed to the 2-s (6.3%) and 5-s (15.6%) palpation duration at the 2.0-kg stimulus intensity (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our present results indicate that referred pain/sensations in the orofacial region can be evoked by standardized palpation of the temporalis muscle and influenced by the palpation duration in individuals without TMD.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Referred pain/sensations from the temporalis muscle were duration- and intensity-dependent processes originating from local stimuli.

Pain in the temple? Headache, muscle pain or both: A retrospective analysis

AIM

Headache attributed to temporomandibular disorders and myalgia are two diagnoses included in the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD). However, it is not clear if these two diagnoses are different clinical entities given their similar presentation and way in which they are diagnosed, when the myalgia is within the temporalis muscle. The purpose of this retrospective study was to assess the overlap between headache attributed to temporomandibular disorders and myalgia of the temporalis muscle.

METHODS

The charts of 671 patients seeking treatment at the Section of Orofacial Pain and Jaw Function, Aarhus University, Denmark, between January 2015 and February 2020 were screened for a diagnosis of headache attributed to temporomandibular disorders, myalgia of the temporalis muscle, or both.

RESULTS

A total of 89 patients fulfilled the DC/TMD criteria for either headache attributed to TMD, myalgia of the temporalis or both. Of these, two had a diagnosis of headache attributed to TMD, 16 of myalgia of the temporalis, and 71 were diagnosed with both. In 97.3% of the times that headache attributed to temporomandibular disorders was diagnosed, the patient was also diagnosed with myalgia of the temporalis. The Jaccard index was 0.8, indicating a substantial overlap between the two diagnoses. Finally, the overlap of pain location between the two diagnoses was substantial, with a Jaccard index of 0.9.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, headache attributed to temporomandibular disorders was almost exclusively diagnosed together with myalgia of the temporalis. Therefore, we propose that headache attributed to temporomandibular disorders and myalgia of the temporalis muscle have more clinical similarities than differences and as such could be considered one single clinical entity. Further studies will be needed to address the clinical consequences of this proposal.

Clinical, psychological, and sensory characteristics associated with headache attributed to temporomandibular disorder in people with chronic myogenous temporomandibular disorder and primary headaches

Background

Headache attributed to Temporomandibular Disorder (HATMD) is a secondary headache that may have features resulting in diagnostic overlap with primary headaches, namely, tension-type (TTH) or migraine. This cross-sectional study of people with both chronic myogenous TMD and primary headaches evaluated characteristics associated with HATMD.

Methods

From a clinical trial of adults, baseline data were used from a subset with diagnoses of both TMD myalgia according to the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) and TTH or migraine according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. HATMD was classified based on the DC/TMD. Questionnaires and examinations evaluated 42 characteristics of facial pain, headache, general health, psychological distress, and experimental pain sensitivity. Univariate regression models quantified the associations of each characteristic with HATMD (present versus absent), headache type (TTH versus migraine), and their interaction in a factorial design. Multivariable lasso regression identified the most important predictors of HATMD.

Results

Of 185 participants, 114 (61.6%) had HATMD, while the numbers with TTH (n = 98, 53.0%) and migraine (n = 87, 47.0%) were similar. HATMD was more likely among migraineurs (61/87 = 70.1%) than participants with TTH (53/98 = 54.1%; odds ratio = 2.0; 95%CL = 1.1, 3.7). In univariate analyses, characteristics associated with HATMD included pain-free jaw opening and examination-evoked pain in masticatory muscles and temporomandibular joints (TMJ) as well as frequency and impact of headache, but not frequency or impact of facial pain. Lowered blood pressure but not psychological or sensory characteristics was associated with HATMD. Multiple characteristics of facial pain, headache, general health, and psychological distress differed between TTH or migraine groups. Few interactions were observed, demonstrating that most characteristics’ associations with HATMD were consistent in TTH and migraine groups. The lasso model identified headache frequency and examination-evoked muscle pain as the most important predictors of HATMD.

Conclusions

HATMD is highly prevalent among patients with chronic myogenous TMD and headaches and often presents as migraine. In contrast to primary headaches, HATMD is associated with higher headache frequency and examination-evoked masticatory muscle pain, but with surprisingly few measures of facial pain, general health, and psychological distress. A better understanding of HATMD is necessary for developing targeted strategies for its management.

Trial identification and registration

SOPPRANO; NCT02437383. Registered May 7, 2015.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01255-1.

Preclinical studies investigating the neural mechanisms involved in the co-morbidity of migraine and temporomandibular disorders: the role of CGRP

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and migraine can be co-morbid. This can be a significant factor in exacerbating and increasing the prevalence of migraine-like symptoms. However, the underlying mechanisms involved are unknown. Our objective was to investigate these neural mechanisms and the role of CGRP as a key modulator in this co-morbidity.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

We combined experimental approaches using CGRP, which triggers a migraine-like response in patients, with that of masseteric muscle injection of complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA), to model myofascial TMD-like inflammation. Using validated electrophysiological methods to assess each of the above approaches independently or in combination, we examined their effects on the response properties of migraine-like dural-trigeminocervical neurons.

KEY RESULTS

Independently, in ~2/3 of animals (rats) each approach caused delayed migraine-like activation and sensitisation of dural-trigeminocervical neurons. The response to masseteric-CFA was attenuated by a selective CGRP receptor antagonist. The combination approach caused a migraine-like neuronal response in all animals tested, with somatosensory-evoked cranial hypersensitivity significantly exacerbated.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The data demonstrate a neuronal phenotype that translates to the exacerbated clinical co-morbid phenotype, supporting this combination approach as a relevant model to study the mechanisms involved. It provides a pathophysiological rationale for this exacerbated phenotype, strongly implicating the involvement of CGRP. The results provide support for targeting the CGRP pathway as a novel monotherapy approach for treating this co-morbid condition. This has key implications into our understanding of this co-morbid condition, as well as potentially addressing the major unmet need for novel and effective therapeutic approaches.

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular Disorders

The aim was to perform a translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and psychometric evaluation of the Spanish version of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular Disorders (TSK-TMD-S). The study sample included 110 patients with TMD. We translated and cross-culturally adapted the TSK-TMD-S using standard methodology and analysed its internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, floor and ceiling effects, and discriminant validity. Confirmatory factor analysis extracted two factors and 10 items deemed essential for the scale. The TSK-TMD-S demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α of 0.843, 0.938, and 0.885 for the entire scale, activity avoidance subscale, and somatic focus subscale, respectively; intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.81-0.9). No floor or ceiling effects were identified for this final version of the scale. The TSK-TMD-S total score showed moderate positive correlation with the craniofacial pain and disability inventory, visual analogue scale, general TSK and pain catastrophizing scale, and a moderate negative correlation with maximal mouth-opening. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that the subclassification employed for the TSK-TMD-S discriminates different kinesiophobia levels with a diagnostic accuracy between sufficient and good. The optimal cut-off point for considering kinesiophobia is 23 points. TSK-TMD-S appears to be a valid and reliable instrument for measuring kinesiophobia in patients with TMD.

Association between craniofacial pain complaints, somatoform symptoms and chronic diseases

OBJECTIVE

This case-control study aimed to investigate associations between craniofacial pain complaints, somatoform symptoms and chronic diseases.

DESIGN

306 subjects were included in this study (174 patients and 132 healthy subjects). The evaluation consisted of demographic data, number of functional and nonfunctional chronic diseases, medications, somatoform symptoms (xerostomia, dry mucosa, numbness, gastrointestinal complaints), and pain complaints with associated characteristics (number of pain areas, sensation of tired face, bruxism, sleep disturbances, masticatory musculoskeletal evaluation). Statistical analysis included descriptive data, tested with chi-square, Fisher's exact, nonparametric Kolmogorov-Smirnoff, Student's t-test, Pearson's coefficient, two-steps cluster classification, multivariate linear and LASSO regressions.

RESULTS

Functional disorders were prevalent in 111 (63.8 %) patients with facial pain. They were taking more medication (p < 0.001) and had more sleep disturbances (p < 0.001), higher xerostomia scores (p < 0.001) and more gastrointestinal complaints (p < 0.001) than controls. There was a positive correlation between the functional score and the number of cranial areas with headache (R² = 0.266, <0.001). The regression models for facial pain (R² = 0.632), craniofacial pain (R² = 0.623) and headache (R² = 0.252) showed significant dependency of functional disorders (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

craniofacial pain was associated with functional diseases and somatoform symptoms. This association needs further investigation to understand the role of those disorders in craniofacial pain, considering that pain complaints are common somatoform and functional symptoms.

The diagnostic accuracy of headache measurement instruments: A systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on headaches associated with musculoskeletal symptoms

AIM

To systematically review the available literature on the diagnostic accuracy of questionnaires and measurement instruments for headaches associated with musculoskeletal symptoms.

DESIGN

Articles were eligible for inclusion when the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity/specificity) was established for measurement instruments for headaches associated with musculoskeletal symptoms in an adult population. The databases searched were PubMed (1966-2018), Cochrane (1898-2018) and Cinahl (1988-2018). Methodological quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for criterion validity. When possible, a meta-analysis was performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) recommendations were applied to establish the level of evidence per measurement instrument.

RESULTS

From 3450 articles identified, 31 articles were included in this review. Eleven measurement instruments for migraine were identified, of which the ID-Migraine is recommended with a moderate level of evidence and a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85-0.89) and specificity of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.72-0.78). Six measurement instruments examined both migraine and tension-type headache and only the Headache Screening Questionnaire - Dutch version has a moderate level of evidence with a sensitivity of 0.69 (95% CI 0.55-0.80) and specificity of 0.90 (95% CI 0.77-0.96) for migraine, and a sensitivity of 0.36 (95% CI 0.21-0.54) and specificity of 0.86 (95% CI 0.74-0.92) for tension-type headache. For cervicogenic headache, only the cervical flexion rotation test was identified and had a very low level of evidence with a pooled sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.72-0.94) and specificity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.91).

DISCUSSION

The current review is the first to establish an overview of the diagnostic accuracy of measurement instruments for headaches associated with musculoskeletal factors. However, as most measurement instruments were validated in one study, pooling was not always possible. Risk of bias was a serious problem for most studies, decreasing the level of evidence. More research is needed to enhance the level of evidence for existing measurement instruments for multiple headaches.

AAPT Diagnostic Criteria for Chronic Painful Temporomandibular Disorders

The classification of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) has progressed substantially over the past 25 years owing to the strategic implementation of an initial classification system based on core taxonomic principles. In this article, we describe the development of the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) and its translation into the multidimensional Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations Innovations Opportunities and Networks-AAPT for chronic pain disorders. The initial scientific classification system (Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders) relied on a boot-strapping process that did not attempt to solve all known clinical problems but, rather, focused on problems that could be solved at that time. The core design principles included using epidemiologic data, operationalized concepts, reliable methods, and the incorporation of the biopsychosocial model into a dual axis system. This system led to sufficient data collection internationally that the system itself could be revised, first by critical evaluation of all aspects, second by review from invited experts, and third by the construction of a revised taxonomy (DC/TMD) that maintained the core design principles of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. The resultant disorders with pain as a dominant feature exhibit substantial sensitivity and specificity, and they have been translated into the AAPT framework. The AAPT TMD criteria are part of an evidence-based classification system providing a systematic structure that includes 5 dimensions: diagnostic criteria, common features, comorbidities, consequences, and putative mechanisms. Future research will attempt to extend this AAPT domain from solely TMDs to include other orofacial pain conditions. PERSPECTIVE: The painful TMDs have well-established sensitivity and specificity, as based on the DC/TMD; their translation to the AAPT framework for chronic pain conditions provides a structure for consistent clinical application within the broader health care settings and for future research on the TMDs.

Characterization and predictive mechanisms of experimentally induced tension-type headache

Objective

Studies have shown it is possible to elicit a tension-type headache episode in 15 to 30% of healthy individuals following a tooth-clenching or stress-inducing task. Despite this, no studies have attempted to understand why some healthy individuals develop a headache episode while others do not.

Methods

The present randomized, single-blind, controlled study recruited 60 healthy participants who participated in a 30-minute tooth-clenching task and 10 participants who participated in a control task. Before the tasks, participants had their pericranial tenderness and pain modulation profiles (wind-up ratio and conditioned pain modulation) assessed. Two hours later, pericranial tenderness and pressure pain thresholds were assessed as well as any developing temporomandibular disorders. Pain diaries were kept for 24 hours to register any developing pain or headache.

Results

Participants with a decrease in pericranial tenderness after the tooth-clenching task were less likely to develop headache when compared to participants without. Pain modulation profiles could not predict who developed headache and who did not. Finally, no difference was found between groups for developing temporomandibular disorders. No difference in frequency of participants who developed headache was found between the tooth-clenching and the control task.

Conclusions

In conclusion, it was shown that increased pericranial tenderness was not required to trigger an episode of tension-type headache in healthy participants. Furthermore, pain modulation profiles could not predict who developed headache and who did not. Finally, activation of descending inhibitory pathways, as assessed by decreases in pericranial tenderness, was protective against the development of headache. These findings provide new insights into the pathophysiology of experimentally-induced tension-type headache.

Sleep Bruxism and Pain

Bruxism is an oral behavior that may lead to repetitive jaw-muscle activity characterized by clenching or grinding of the teeth and/or by bracing or thrusting of the mandible with 2 distinct circadian manifestations: sleep bruxism or awake bruxism. They share common risk factors and lead to similar consequences for the masticatory system but may have different etiology and pathophysiology. This oral behavior has been associated with tooth wear, masticatory muscle tenderness, headaches, and painful temporomandibular disorders. Available scientific evidence does not support the view that bruxism is a direct cause of pain, which should be taken into account when treating/managing patients.

A new biofeedback approach for the control of masseter and temporal myalgia: Utilization of an awake posterior interocclusal device

Objective: To evaluate the improvement in reducing the pain of patients diagnosed with masticatory myofascial pain and bruxism when undergoing treatment with a partial posterior interocclusal device for the management and control of awake bruxism through biofeedback. Methods: Sixty patients were evaluated during the following periods: pretreatment, 7, 30, and 90 days. The evaluation was carried out by measuring the reduction in pain using clinical and numerical scales. Results: The majority of the patients who complained of masticatory myofascial pain, TMJ, and neck pain experienced a significant reduction in pain between t0 and t30 (p < 0.0001). After 30 days of using the device, the improvement remained at the same level, without any recurrence of pain up to t90. Conclusion: The utilization of a posterior interocclusal device for the management and control of awake bruxism through biofeedback contributed to the reduction of pain in the majority of patients.

The Association Between Headaches and Temporomandibular Disorders is Confounded by Bruxism and Somatic Symptoms

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this observational study was to establish the possible presence of confounders on the association between temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and headaches in a patient population from a TMD and Orofacial Pain Clinic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Several subtypes of headaches have been diagnosed: self-reported headache, (probable) migraine, (probable) tension-type headache, and secondary headache attributed to TMD. The presence of TMD was subdivided into 2 subtypes: painful TMD and function-related TMD. The associations between the subtypes of TMD and headaches were evaluated by single regression models. To study the influence of possible confounding factors on this association, the regression models were extended with age, sex, bruxism, stress, depression, and somatic symptoms.

RESULTS

Of the included patients (n=203), 67.5% experienced headaches. In the subsample of patients with a painful TMD (n=58), the prevalence of self-reported headaches increased to 82.8%. The associations found between self-reported headache and (1) painful TMD and (2) function-related TMD were confounded by the presence of somatic symptoms. For probable migraine, both somatic symptoms and bruxism confounded the initial association found with painful TMD.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study imply that there is a central working mechanism overlapping TMD and headache. Health care providers should not regard these disorders separately, but rather look at the bigger picture to appreciate the complex nature of the diagnostic and therapeutic process.

Oro-facial pain and temporomandibular disorders classification systems: A critical appraisal and future directions

It is a difficult undertaking to design a classification system for any disease entity, let alone for oro-facial pain (OFP) and more specifically for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). A further complication of this task is that both physical and psychosocial variables must be included. To augment this process, a two-step systematic review, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, of the classification systems published during the last 20 years for OFP and TMD was performed. The first search step identified 190 potential citations which ultimately resulted in only 17 articles being included for in-depth analysis and review. The second step resulted in only 5 articles being selected for inclusion in this review. Five additional articles and four classification guidelines/criteria were also included due to expansion of the search criteria. Thus, in total, 14 documents comprising articles and guidelines/criteria (8 proposals of classification systems for OFP; 6 for TMD) were selected for inclusion in the systematic review. For each, a discussion as to their advantages, strengths and limitations was provided. Suggestions regarding the future direction for improving the classification process with the use of ontological principles rather than taxonomy are discussed. Furthermore, the potential for expanding the scope of axes included in existing classification systems, to include genetic, epigenetic and neurobiological variables, is explored. It is therefore recommended that future classification system proposals be based on combined approaches aiming to provide archetypal treatment-oriented classifications.

Temporal change in headache and its contribution to the risk of developing first-onset temporomandibular disorder in the Orofacial Pain: Prospective Evaluation and Risk Assessment (OPPERA) study

While cross-sectional studies have demonstrated an association between headache and temporomandibular disorder (TMD), whether headache can predict the onset of TMD is unknown. The aims of this study were to evaluate the contribution of headache to the risk of developing TMD and describe patterns of change in headache types over time. An initially TMD-free cohort of 2410 persons with low frequency of headache completed quarterly questionnaires assessing TMD and headache symptoms over a median 3.0-year follow-up period. First-onset TMD was confirmed by clinical examination in 199 participants. Baseline reports of migraine (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-2.62) or mixed headache types (HR = 4.11, 95% CI: 1.47-11.46), or headache frequency (HR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.31-3.48) predicted increased risk of developing TMD. In addition, headache dynamics across the follow-up period before the TMD onset were evaluated in a nested case-control study where 248 incident TMD cases were matched to 191 TMD-free controls. Both headache prevalence and frequency increased across the observation period among those who developed TMD but not among controls. Patients with TMD were more likely to experience worsening in the headache type compared with that by controls, eg, prevalence of definite migraine among TMD cases increased 10-fold. Among all headache types experienced by patients with TMD before the TMD onset, migraine had the highest odds of progression relative to remission (odds ratio = 2.8, 95% CI: 1.6-4.8), whereas for controls this ratio was significant only for the tension-type headache (odds ratio = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.2-3.9). The important clinical implication of these findings is that adequate treatment of migraine may reduce the risk for developing TMD.

Influence of culture on pain comorbidity in women with and without temporomandibular disorder-pain

Evidence on cultural differences in prevalence and impact of common chronic pain conditions, comparing individuals with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) versus individuals without TMD, is limited. The aim was to assess cross-cultural comorbid pain conditions in women with chronic TMD pain. Consecutive women patients (n = 122) with the index condition of chronic TMD pain diagnosed per the research diagnostic criteria for TMD and TMD-free controls (n = 121) matched for age were recruited in Saudi Arabia, Italy and Sweden. Self-report questionnaires assessed back, chest, stomach and head pain for prevalence, pain intensity and interference with daily activities. Logistic regression was used for binary variables, and ancova was used for parametric data analysis, adjusting for age and education. Back pain was the only comorbid condition with a different prevalence across cultures; Swedes reported a lower prevalence compared to Saudis (P < 0·01). Saudis reported higher prevalence of work reduced >50% due to back pain compared to Italians or Swedes (P < 0·01). Headache was the most common comorbid condition in all three cultures. The total number of comorbid conditions did not differ cross-culturally but were reported more by TMD-pain cases than TMD-free controls (P < 0·01). For both back and head pain, higher average pain intensities (P < 0·01) and interference with daily activities (P < 0·01) were reported by TMD-pain cases, compared to TMD-free controls. Among TMD-pain cases, Italians reported the highest pain-related disability (P < 0·01). Culture influences the associated comorbidity of common pain conditions. The cultural influence on pain expression is reflected in different patterns of physical representation.

The Evolution of TMD Diagnosis: Past, Present, Future

This review explores the principles and process associated with the diagnosis of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). TMD diagnosis has evolved substantially over the past 25 y. Previously, diagnosis focused solely on aberrations in oral structures, largely without empirical evidence. The Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD) were developed on core principles of 1) a dual-axis system reflecting the biopsychosocial model, 2) a clear operationalization for reliability, and 3) the allowance of multiple diagnoses. These principles were retained in the subsequent validation research of the RDC/TMD, and the current diagnostic system-the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD)-has improved on those principles as well as on diagnostic validity and protocols for assessing the psychosocial domain. Further investigations into etiology and its potential contribution to taxonomy revision are described, particularly within the context of complex disease. The review concludes with an outline of major research areas already underway that will support future revisions of the DC/TMD.

Perspectives on next steps in classification of oro-facial pain - part 1: role of ontology

The purpose of this study was to review existing principles of oro-facial pain classifications and to specify design recommendations for a new system that would reflect recent insights in biomedical classification systems, terminologies and ontologies. The study was initiated by a symposium organised by the International RDC/TMD Consortium Network in March 2013, to which the present authors contributed. The following areas are addressed: problems with current classification approaches, status of the ontological basis of pain disorders, insufficient diagnostic aids and biomarkers for pain disorders, exploratory nature of current pain terminology and classification systems, and problems with prevailing classification methods from an ontological perspective. Four recommendations for addressing these problems are as follows: (i) develop a hypothesis-driven classification structure built on principles that ensure to our best understanding an accurate description of the relations among all entities involved in oro-facial pain disorders; (ii) take into account the physiology and phenomenology of oro-facial pain disorders to adequately represent both domains including psychosocial entities in a classification system; (iii) plan at the beginning for field-testing at strategic development stages; and (iv) consider how the classification system will be implemented. Implications in relation to the specific domains of psychosocial factors and biomarkers for inclusion into an oro-facial pain classification system are described in two separate papers.

Masticatory sensory-motor changes after an experimental chewing test influenced by pain catastrophizing and neck-pain-related disability in patients with headache attributed to temporomandibular disorders

Background

Recent research has shown a relationship of craniomandibular disability with neck-pain-related disability has been shown. However, there is still insufficient information demonstrating the influence of neck pain and disability in the sensory-motor activity in patients with headache attributed to temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of neck-pain-related disability on masticatory sensory-motor variables.

Methods

An experimental case–control study investigated 83 patients with headache attributed to TMD and 39 healthy controls. Patients were grouped according to their scores on the neck disability index (NDI) (mild and moderate neck disability). Initial assessment included the pain catastrophizing scale and the Headache Impact Test-6. The protocol consisted of baseline measurements of pressure pain thresholds (PPT) and pain-free maximum mouth opening (MMO). Individuals were asked to perform the provocation chewing test, and measurements were taken immediately after and 24 hours later. During the test, patients were assessed for subjective feelings of fatigue (VAFS) and pain intensity.

Results

VAFS was higher at 6 minutes (mean 51.7; 95% CI: 50.15-53.26) and 24 hours after (21.08; 95% CI: 18.6-23.5) for the group showing moderate neck disability compared with the mild neck disability group (6 minutes, 44.16; 95% CI 42.65-45.67/ 24 hours after, 14.3; 95% CI: 11.9-16.7) and the control group. The analysis shows a decrease in the pain-free MMO only in the group of moderate disability 24 hours after the test. PPTs of the trigeminal region decreased immediately in all groups, whereas at 24 hours, a decrease was observed in only the groups of patients. PPTs of the cervical region decreased in only the group with moderate neck disability 24 hours after the test. The strongest negative correlation was found between pain-free MMO immediately after the test and NDI in both the mild (r = −0.49) and moderate (r = −0.54) neck disability groups. VAFS was predicted by catastrophizing, explaining 17% of the variance in the moderate neck disability group and 12% in the mild neck disability group.

Conclusion

Neck-pain-related disability and pain catastrophizing have an influence on the sensory-motor variables evaluated in patients with headache attributed to TMD.

Temporomandibular disorders, headaches and chronic pain

Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are a major cause of non-dental orofacial pain with a suggested prevalence of 3% to 5% in the general population. TMDs present as unilateral or bilateral pain centered round the pre-auricular area and can be associated with clicking and limitation in jaw movements. It is important to ascertain if there are other comorbid factors such as headaches, widespread chronic pain and mood changes. A biopsychosocial approach is crucial with a careful explanation and self-care techniques encouraged.

Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) for Clinical and Research Applications: recommendations of the International RDC/TMD Consortium Network* and Orofacial Pain Special Interest Group†

AIMS

The original Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic algorithms have been demonstrated to be reliable. However, the Validation Project determined that the RDC/TMD Axis I validity was below the target sensitivity of ≥ 0.70 and specificity of ≥ 0.95. Consequently, these empirical results supported the development of revised RDC/TMD Axis I diagnostic algorithms that were subsequently demonstrated to be valid for the most common pain-related TMD and for one temporomandibular joint (TMJ) intra-articular disorder. The original RDC/TMD Axis II instruments were shown to be both reliable and valid. Working from these findings and revisions, two international consensus workshops were convened, from which recommendations were obtained for the finalization of new Axis I diagnostic algorithms and new Axis II instruments.

METHODS

Through a series of workshops and symposia, a panel of clinical and basic science pain experts modified the revised RDC/TMD Axis I algorithms by using comprehensive searches of published TMD diagnostic literature followed by review and consensus via a formal structured process. The panel's recommendations for further revision of the Axis I diagnostic algorithms were assessed for validity by using the Validation Project's data set, and for reliability by using newly collected data from the ongoing TMJ Impact Project-the follow-up study to the Validation Project. New Axis II instruments were identified through a comprehensive search of the literature providing valid instruments that, relative to the RDC/TMD, are shorter in length, are available in the public domain, and currently are being used in medical settings.

RESULTS

The newly recommended Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) Axis I protocol includes both a valid screener for detecting any pain-related TMD as well as valid diagnostic criteria for differentiating the most common pain-related TMD (sensitivity ≥ 0.86, specificity ≥ 0.98) and for one intra-articular disorder (sensitivity of 0.80 and specificity of 0.97). Diagnostic criteria for other common intra-articular disorders lack adequate validity for clinical diagnoses but can be used for screening purposes. Inter-examiner reliability for the clinical assessment associated with the validated DC/TMD criteria for pain-related TMD is excellent (kappa ≥ 0.85). Finally, a comprehensive classification system that includes both the common and less common TMD is also presented. The Axis II protocol retains selected original RDC/TMD screening instruments augmented with new instruments to assess jaw function as well as behavioral and additional psychosocial factors. The Axis II protocol is divided into screening and comprehensive self report instrument sets. The screening instruments' 41 questions assess pain intensity, pain-related disability, psychological distress, jaw functional limitations, and parafunctional behaviors, and a pain drawing is used to assess locations of pain. The comprehensive instruments, composed of 81 questions, assess in further detail jaw functional limitations and psychological distress as well as additional constructs of anxiety and presence of comorbid pain conditions.

CONCLUSION

The recommended evidence-based new DC/TMD protocol is appropriate for use in both clinical and research settings. More comprehensive instruments augment short and simple screening instruments for Axis I and Axis II. These validated instruments allow for identification of patients with a range of simple to complex TMD presentations.

Social impairment of individuals suffering from different types of chronic orofacial pain

Background

The daily life of patients suffering from orofacial pain is considerably impaired as compared to healthy subjects. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of different categories of orofacial pain on the habitual life of adult individuals.

Methods

Seven hundred eighty-one individuals with orofacial pain were recruited from an initial sample of 1,058 patients. All the individuals were allocated to groups according to their diagnosis: myofascial pain (group A, 676 subjects, 525 females and 151 males; mean age ± SD = 35.2 ± 12.6), migraine (group B, 39 subjects, 29 females and 10 males; mean age ± SD 36.0 ± 10.7), and both myofascial pain and migraine (group C, 66 subjects, 56 females and 10 males, mean age ± SD = 35.6 ± 10.8). Characteristic pain intensity (CPI), disability days (DD), disability score (DS), and graded chronic pain intensity (GCPS) were calculated according to Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) axis II. Depression and somatization (nonspecific physical symptoms) scores were also calculated.

Results

A significant association between groups and GCPS categories was found (p < 0.0001). Post hoc tests showed a significant difference between groups A and B and between A and C, but not between B and C. In group A, the most frequent GCPS score was grade II. The most frequent GCPS score in groups B and C was grade III, indicating a moderate limiting impairment. This score was more frequent in group B (41%) than in the other groups (group A = 20.6%, group C = 34.8%). GCPS grade IV was more frequent in group C (19.7%) than in the other groups. Group C had significantly higher scores for nonspecific physical symptoms than group A (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Myofascial pain and migraine sensibly affect the common daily life of adult individuals. The comorbidity of both conditions determines a major impairment.

Expanding the taxonomy of the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders

There is a need to expand the current temporomandibular disorders' (TMDs) classification to include less common but clinically important disorders. The immediate aim was to develop a consensus-based classification system and associated diagnostic criteria that have clinical and research utility for less common TMDs. The long-term aim was to establish a foundation, vis-à-vis this classification system, that will stimulate data collection, validity testing and further criteria refinement. A working group [members of the International RDC/TMD Consortium Network of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), members of the Orofacial Pain Special Interest Group (SIG) of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), and members from other professional societies] reviewed disorders for inclusion based on clinical significance, the availability of plausible diagnostic criteria and the ability to operationalise and study the criteria. The disorders were derived from the literature when possible and based on expert opinion as necessary. The expanded TMDs taxonomy was presented for feedback at international meetings. Of 56 disorders considered, 37 were included in the expanded taxonomy and were placed into the following four categories: temporomandibular joint disorders, masticatory muscle disorders, headache disorders and disorders affecting associated structures. Those excluded were extremely uncommon, lacking operationalised diagnostic criteria, not clearly related to TMDs, or not sufficiently distinct from disorders already included within the taxonomy. The expanded TMDs taxonomy offers an integrated approach to clinical diagnosis and provides a framework for further research to operationalise and test the proposed taxonomy and diagnostic criteria.

Orofacial pain: a guide for the headache physician

Orofacial pain represents a significant burden in terms of morbidity and health service utilization. It includes very common disorders such as toothache and temporomandibular disorders, as well as rare orofacial pain syndromes. Many orofacial pain conditions have overlapping presentations, and diagnostic uncertainty is frequently encountered in clinical practice. This review provides a clinically orientated overview of common and uncommon orofacial pain presentations and diagnoses, with an emphasis on conditions that may be unfamiliar to the headache physician. A holistic approach to orofacial pain management is important, and the social, cultural, psychological and cognitive context of each patient needs to be considered in the process of diagnostic formulation, as well as in the development of a pain management plan according to the biopsychosocial model. Recognition of psychological comorbidities will assist in diagnosis and management planning.

Differential diagnosis of facial pain and guidelines for management

The diagnosis and management of facial pain below the eye can be very different dependant on whether the patient visits a dentist or medical practitioner. A structure for accurate diagnosis is proposed beginning with a very careful history. The commonest acute causes of pain are dental and these are well managed by dentists. Chronic facial pain can be unilateral or bilateral and continuous or episodic. The commonest non-dental pains are temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), especially musculoskeletal involving the muscles of mastication either unilaterally or bilaterally; they may be associated with other chronic pains. A very wide range of treatments are used but early diagnosis, reassurance and some simple physiotherapy is often effective in those with good coping strategies. Dentists will often make splints to wear at night. Neuropathic pain is usually unilateral and of the episodic type; the most easily recognized is trigeminal neuralgia. This severe electric shock like pain, provoked by light touch, responds best to carbamazepine, and neurosurgery in poorly controlled patients. Trauma, either major or because of dental procedures, results in neuropathic pain and these are then managed as for any other neuropathic pain. Red flags include giant cell arteritis which much be distinguished from temporomandibular disorders (TMD), especially in >50 yr olds, and cancer which can present as a progressive neuropathic pain. Burning mouth syndrome is rarely recognized as a neuropathic pain as it occurs principally in peri-menopausal women and is thought to be psychological. Chronic facial pain patients are best managed by a multidisciplinary team.

Multi-dimensionality of chronic pain of the oral cavity and face

Orofacial pain in its broadest definition can affect up to 7% of the population. Its diagnosis and initial management falls between dentists and doctors and in the secondary care sector among pain physicians, headache neurologists and oral physicians. Chronic facial pain is a long term condition and like all other chronic pain is associated with numerous co-morbidities and treatment outcomes are often related to the presenting co-morbidities such as depression, anxiety, catastrophising and presence of other chronic pain which must be addressed as part of management . The majority of orofacial pain is continuous so a history of episodic pain narrows down the differentials. There are specific oral conditions that rarely present extra orally such as atypical odontalgia and burning mouth syndrome whereas others will present in both areas. Musculoskeletal pain related to the muscles of mastication is very common and may also be associated with disc problems. Trigeminal neuralgia and the rarer glossopharyngeal neuralgia are specific diagnosis with defined care pathways. Other trigeminal neuropathic pain which can be associated with neuropathy is caused most frequently by trauma but secondary causes such as malignancy, infection and auto-immune causes need to be considered. Management is along the lines of other neuropathic pain using accepted pharmacotherapy with psychological support. If no other diagnostic criteria are fulfilled than a diagnosis of chronic or persistent idiopathic facial pain is made and often a combination of antidepressants and cognitive behaviour therapy is effective. Facial pain patients should be managed by a multidisciplinary team.