Pain paper 2b: classification of orofacial pain and an update on assessment and diagnosis

Implant-supported canine retraction using different reactivation intervals of elastomeric chains: A CBCT-based split-mouth randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Orthodontists attempt to maximize treatment efficiency regarding time, tooth position and adverse effects. A new approach, not yet explored, is the activation frequency.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this split-mouth randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effect of reactivation intervals on the efficiency of tooth movement.

METHODS

Thirty eight patients having a Class I malocclusion with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion or severe crowding, Class II with mandibular deficiency or Class III, requiring first premolar extraction and canine retraction were recruited. Elastomeric chains producing 150g were replaced every two, four, six or eight weeks. There were 36, 37, 36, and 36 quadrants randomly allocated to these groups, respectively. The canine retraction rate was the primary outcome. Canine tipping, rotation, and root resorption and pain were the secondary outcomes. Only the outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment.

RESULTS

The average total movement for the 6 months was 5.14, 5.31, 2.79 and 3.85 mm for the two-week, four-week, six-week and eight-week reactivation intervals, respectively. Root resorption was significantly higher in the two-week and four-week groups. No adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSION

The canine retraction rate, tipping, rotation and pain were similar in 2, 4, 6 and 8-week activation intervals groups. Longer reactivation intervals show less root resorption. The trial protocol was not pre-registered. The study was self-funded.

What are the best parameters of low-level laser therapy to reduce pain intensity and improve mandibular function in orofacial pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To determine the effectiveness of laser therapy for managing patients with orofacial pain (OFP). In addition, to determine which parameters provide the best treatment effects to reduce pain, improve function, and quality of life in adults with OFP.

METHODS

Systematic review. Searches were conducted in six databases; no date or language restrictions were applied. Studies involving adults with OFP treated with laser therapy were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was performed with the Revised Cochrane RoB-2. A meta-analysis was structured around the OFP type, and outcomes. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessed the overall certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine studies were included. Most studies (n = 72, 80.9%) were considered to have a high RoB. The results showed that laser therapy was better than placebo in improving pain, maximal mouth open (MMO), protrusion, and tenderness at the final assessment, but with a low or moderate level of evidence. The best lasers and parameters to reduce pain are diode or gallium-aluminum-arsenide (GaAlAs) lasers, a wavelength of 400-800 or 800-1500 nm, and dosage of <25 J/cm2.

CONCLUSIONS

Laser therapy was better than placebo to improve pain, MMO, protrusion, and tenderness. Also, it was better than occlusal splint to improve pain, but not better than TENS and medication.Implications for rehabilitationLaser therapy was found to be good in improving pain, maximal mouth opening, jaw protrusion, and tenderness at the end of the treatment.For patients with all types of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) (myogenous, arthrogenous, and mixed), the following lasers and parameters are recommended: diode or gallium-aluminum-arsenide (GaAlAs) laser, wavelength of 400-800 or 800-1500 nm, and a dosage <25 J/cm2.For patients with arthrogenous TMDs, the following lasers and parameters are recommended: Diode laser and a wavelength between 400 and 800 nm.For patients with myogenous TMDs, the following lasers and parameters are recommended: diode laser, wavelength between 800 and 1500 nm, and dosage of <25 J/cm2.For patients with mixed TMDs, the following lasers and parameters are recommended: diode, GaAlAs, or infrared laser, a wavelength of 800-1500 nm, a dosage >100 J/cm2, and an application time between 15 and 30 s or >60 seconds.

Clinical presentations on a facial pain clinic

Introduction The complex nature of facial pain conditions creates a diagnostic challenge which may necessitate specialist referral.Aim To identify the case mix presenting to a specialist tertiary care facial pain clinic.Methods A retrospective review of 112 patient records was undertaken. Trends in provisional diagnoses from referrers and the correlation to diagnoses made following specialist consultation were reviewed.Results The most common provisional diagnoses recorded in referral letters were painful temporomandibular disorders, trigeminal neuralgia and persistent idiopathic facial pain (PIFP). Over a quarter of referrals did not include a provisional diagnosis. Following assessment, only one case was not given a definitive diagnosis and no patients were diagnosed with PIFP. A causative factor was identified in all the initially queried PIFP cases, and painful post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain was found in multiple patients.Conclusions Painful post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain should be considered if pain onset coincides with dental treatment or other traumatic events. PIFP is a rare facial pain diagnosis and may be over-diagnosed by dental and medical practitioners. It is important to systematically exclude other causes before reaching this diagnosis. This will facilitate effective treatment, manage patient expectations and potentially reduce unnecessary referrals.