Temporomandibular Dysfunction
Conditions
Keywords
temporomandibular dysfunction, TMD, TMJ, Traditional Chinese Medicine, TCM
Brief summary
This study sought to evaluate the benefits of different combinations of a Self Care program, involving individually targeted education and support, plus Traditional Chinese Medicine, in terms of patients' experience and outcomes in short-term follow-up (8 weeks, reported here) and long-term follow-up (18-months). The study seeks to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of different patterns of stepped care, which means different levels of care depending on patients' responses at various time-points in the study, which might be used by clinicians treating in the future.
Detailed description
Studies of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) have shown that chronic pain in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and/or masticatory muscles affects more than 10% of adults at any one time and that one-third of adults will experience TMD over their lifespan (Von Korff et al. 1988). TMD includes a wide range of symptoms: facial pain, jaw-joint pain, headaches, earaches, dizziness, masticatory musculature hypertrophy, limited mouth opening, closed or open lock on the TMJ, abnormal occlusal wear, clicking or popping sounds in the jaw joint, and other complaints (NIH 1996). Although the etiology is poorly understood, longitudinal data suggest that TMD is an enduring, recurrent condition and a resistant problem for many (Dworkin et al. 1992a; Dworkin et al. 1989; Moss 1982; Gale 1978), and it affects individuals in all socioeconomic and ethnic groups (Smith & Syrop 1994). In a study of TMD patients in Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) in 1990-1995, the mean age was 40.5 years, and 80% of the patients were female. TMD subjects used 1.6 times the services of other health plan members (White 2001). The Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD) proposed by Dworkin et al. (Dworkin & LeResche 1992b) uses a dual axis system for diagnosing and classifying TMD patients. Axis I assigns physical diagnoses of the most commonly occurring masticatory muscle and/or TMJ disorders (arthralgia, arthritis, and arthroses of the TMJ). Axis II assesses behavioral, psychological and psychosocial factors; functional mandibular limitations; psychological distress, including depression; and Graded Scale of Chronic Pain (GCP) (Von Korff et al. 1992). The RDC/TMD criteria for Axes I and II have been used in numerous clinical research studies around the world (Ohrbach & Dworkin 1998; List et al. 1996; Rudy et al. 1995; Garofalo & Wesley 1998; Yap et al. 2002). An NIH-supported international consortium of RDC/TMD clinical researchers has been established to foster multinational studies of TMD using as their core the RDC/TMD standardized methods and criteria (http://www.rdc-tmdinternational.org/). The RDC/TMD has been suggested as a model system for the diagnosis and assessment of all chronic pain conditions (Garofolo & Wesley 1997; Dworkin, Sherman et al. 2002). The RDC/TMD is being used in this study for the primary endpoint. Epidemiological studies of TMD have focused on estimating prevalence and describing characteristics of persons with and without the condition (Carlsson & LeResche 1995). In more than 75% of the studies reviewed, TMD was not adequately defined. Epidemiologic and clinical studies of TMD confirm its fundamental status as a chronic pain problem (Bell 1986; Fricton et al. 1987; Dworkin et al. 1992a). Yap et al. (2003) found that about 39% of TMD patients also are depressed, and 55% exhibit elevated levels of somatization. Similarly, Lee et al. (1995) found that TMD patients frequently present ear pain, neck pain, shoulder pain, headaches, and previous head or neck trauma. Despite a number of temporomandibular joint pain clinical trials, no approach has been found to persistently and significantly reduce the severity and disability of this condition. The investigators' recent phase II RCT (n=110 women) showed that Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), including acupuncture and herbs, was comparable to or better than comprehensive specialty usual care in reducing pain, and better in improving disability. The improvements did not persist, however, once TCM treatment ended. The investigators hypothesize that this may have been due in part to their lack of education in self-care management. Thus, when their pain returned, they knew of no other option than returning to their TCM practitioner which was not permitted under the protocol. This suggests that the appropriate way to incorporate TCM into TMD care should include a self-care component for all participants. This proposal tests TCM versus self- care management (SC) in a realistic manner that is consistent with an integrative, stepped care strategy, one that begins with a minimal self-care intervention (one session) and increases the intensity in relation to patient needs. After period 1 allocation to TCM or self-care, participants not already on TCM will be allocated to self-care or TCM if period 2 if continued treatment is warranted. This study design is more clinically meaningful than a customary two-group randomization, which does not consider patient outcomes (see study Schema below). The investigators propose a two-site (Tucson and Portland) phase II trial (n=150) that will evaluate the potential short-term pain benefits of TCM. The study hypothesis is that in the two-step clinical allocation model, TCM participants will experience more characteristic facial pain reduction than those who receive only self-care. The investigators will expand the patient population beyond their previous study to include both men and women, as well as individuals who have received previous TMD care (not TCM) and continue to experience TMD pain.
Interventions
Whole systems traditional Chinese medicine, including individually tailored herbal formulas based on a formulary, acupuncture (based on individual TCM diagnoses), tuna (Chinese massage), lifestyle recommendations
a 5-session 8 hour intervention targeting TMD knowledge, stretching and exercises, stress reduction, lifestyle modification
Sponsors
Study design
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
* TMD as diagnosed according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria-TMD by a trained dentist; * worst facial pain greater than 5 out of 10.
Exclusion criteria
* prior surgery for TMD; * life-threatening illnesses; * conditions that would prevent participation in trial including consumption of Chinese herbs.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Characteristic Facial Pain Score | Beginning of each treatment period, end of each treatment period (8 weeks later) | The Characteristic Facial Pain (CFP) score is a mean of participant-reported worst pain over the previous two weeks, average pain when having pain over the previous two weeks, and current pain, reported on a 0-10 VAS scale where 0 means no pain and 10 means worst possible pain. |
Participant flow
Recruitment details
The study took place in Tucson, Arizona, and Portland, Oregon, recruited through newspaper advertisements, and various email list-serves. In Tucson, there was also an active community outreach component to enhance the recruitment of minorities. All individuals responded to our call center in Tucson using a toll-free number. Recruitment began October 1, 2006 and ended September 1, 2007.
Pre-assignment details
In the 1st period, 79 subjects were allocated to TCM (39) or SC (40). 36 TCM subjects completed the 1st period; all were removed from the allocation group for the 2nd period per study plan. 35 SC subjects completed the 1st period. 29 were allocated to TCM (15) or SC (14) for the 2nd period; 6 were removed from the allocation group due to subject choice or insufficient pain. 56 additional subjects were allocated to TCM (27) or SC (29) for the 2nd period. 135 subjects total were allocated.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Traditional Chinese Medicine - Period 1 Whole systems traditional Chinese medicine, including individually tailored herbal formulas, acupuncture, tuna (Chinese massage), lifestyle recommendations TCM: whole system Traditional Chinese Medicine, including acupuncture, herbs, tuina, lifestyle counseling | 39 |
| Self Care - Period 1 Self-care for TMD developed by Dworkin, LeResche et al. Self-care for TMD: a 5-session 8 hour intervention targeting TMD knowledge, stretching and exercises, stress reduction, lifestyle modification | 40 |
| Traditional Chinese Medicine - Period 2 Whole systems traditional Chinese medicine, including individually tailored herbal formulas, acupuncture, tuna (Chinese massage), lifestyle recommendations TCM: whole system Traditional Chinese Medicine, including acupuncture, herbs, tuina, lifestyle counseling | 42 |
| Self Care - Period 2 Self-care for TMD developed by Dworkin, LeResche et al. Self-care for TMD: a 5-session 8 hour intervention targeting TMD knowledge, stretching and exercises, stress reduction, lifestyle modification | 43 |
| Total | 164 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 | FG002 | FG003 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Period 1 | Lost to Follow-up | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Period 1 | Withdrawal by Subject | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Period 2 | Lost to Follow-up | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 |
| Period 2 | Withdrawal by Subject | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Traditional Chinese Medicine - Period 1 | Total | Self Care - Period 1 | Traditional Chinese Medicine - Period 2 | Self Care - Period 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous Period 1 | 42.9 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 13 | 42.6 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.3 | 42.3 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.5 | — | — |
| Age, Continuous Period 2 | — | 43.65 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.2 | — | 43.6 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 12 | 43.7 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.4 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Period 1 Hispanic or Latino | 4 Participants | 8 Participants | 4 Participants | — | — |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Period 1 Not Hispanic or Latino | 33 Participants | 67 Participants | 34 Participants | — | — |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Period 1 Unknown or Not Reported | 2 Participants | 4 Participants | 2 Participants | — | — |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Period 2 Hispanic or Latino | — | 10 Participants | — | 5 Participants | 5 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Period 2 Not Hispanic or Latino | — | 73 Participants | — | 35 Participants | 38 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Period 2 Unknown or Not Reported | — | 2 Participants | — | 2 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Period 1 American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | — | — |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Period 1 Asian | 1 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | — | — |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Period 1 Black or African American | 1 Participants | 2 Participants | 1 Participants | — | — |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Period 1 More than one race | 1 Participants | 2 Participants | 1 Participants | — | — |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Period 1 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | — | — |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Period 1 Unknown or Not Reported | 3 Participants | 8 Participants | 5 Participants | — | — |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Period 1 White | 33 Participants | 66 Participants | 33 Participants | — | — |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Period 2 American Indian or Alaska Native | — | 0 Participants | — | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Period 2 Asian | — | 0 Participants | — | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Period 2 Black or African American | — | 0 Participants | — | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Period 2 More than one race | — | 0 Participants | — | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Period 2 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | — | 0 Participants | — | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Period 2 Unknown or Not Reported | — | 13 Participants | — | 7 Participants | 6 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Period 2 White | — | 72 Participants | — | 35 Participants | 37 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 39 participants | 79 participants | 40 participants | 42 participants | 43 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Period 1 Female | 34 Participants | 68 Participants | 34 Participants | — | — |
| Sex: Female, Male Period 1 Male | 5 Participants | 11 Participants | 6 Participants | — | — |
| Sex: Female, Male Period 2 Female | — | 74 Participants | — | 37 Participants | 37 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Period 2 Male | — | 11 Participants | — | 5 Participants | 6 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk | EG003 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 39 | 0 / 40 | 0 / 43 | 0 / 42 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 1 / 39 | 0 / 40 | 0 / 43 | 0 / 42 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 39 | 0 / 40 | 0 / 43 | 0 / 42 |
Outcome results
Characteristic Facial Pain Score
The Characteristic Facial Pain (CFP) score is a mean of participant-reported worst pain over the previous two weeks, average pain when having pain over the previous two weeks, and current pain, reported on a 0-10 VAS scale where 0 means no pain and 10 means worst possible pain.
Time frame: Beginning of each treatment period, end of each treatment period (8 weeks later)
Population: In the 1st period, 79 subjects were allocated to TCM (39) or SC (40). 36 TCM subjects completed the 1st period; all were removed from the allocation group for the 2nd period per study plan. 35 SC subjects completed the 1st period. 29 were allocated to TCM (15) or SC (14) for the 2nd period; 6 were removed from the allocation group due to subject choice or insufficient pain. 56 additional subjects were allocated to TCM (27) or SC (29) for the 2nd period. 135 subjects total were allocated.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional Chinese Medicine - Period 1 | Characteristic Facial Pain Score | Period 1 - Pre-treatment | 6.52 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.24 |
| Traditional Chinese Medicine - Period 1 | Characteristic Facial Pain Score | Period 1 - Post-treatment | 5.11 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.7 |
| Self-care - Period 1 | Characteristic Facial Pain Score | Period 1 - Pre-treatment | 6.55 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.4 |
| Self-care - Period 1 | Characteristic Facial Pain Score | Period 1 - Post-treatment | 5.47 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.09 |
| Traditional Chinese Medicine - Period 2 | Characteristic Facial Pain Score | Period 2 - Pre-treatment | 5.34 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.54 |
| Traditional Chinese Medicine - Period 2 | Characteristic Facial Pain Score | Period 2 - Post-treatment | 4.44 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.7 |
| Self Care - Period 2 | Characteristic Facial Pain Score | Period 2 - Post-treatment | 4.93 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.54 |
| Self Care - Period 2 | Characteristic Facial Pain Score | Period 2 - Pre-treatment | 5.22 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.43 |