Skip to content

Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) for Temporomandibular Dysfunction (TMD): A Whole Systems Multi-site Trial

TCM for TMD: A Multi-Site Whole Systems Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00856167
Acronym
TCM-TMD
Enrollment
135
Registered
2009-03-05
Start date
2006-10-31
Completion date
2010-12-31
Last updated
2025-10-23

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Temporomandibular Dysfunction

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

COMBINATION_PRODUCTTraditional Chinese Medicine

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

BEHAVIORALSelf-care for TMD

a 5-session 8 hour intervention targeting TMD knowledge, stretching and exercises, stress reduction, lifestyle modification

Sponsors

National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH)
CollaboratorNIH
University of Arizona
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 70 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

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

MeasureTime frameDescription
Characteristic Facial Pain ScoreBeginning 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

ArmCount
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
Total164

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001FG002FG003
Period 1Lost to Follow-up2100
Period 1Withdrawal by Subject1400
Period 2Lost to Follow-up0031
Period 2Withdrawal by Subject0024

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicTraditional Chinese Medicine - Period 1TotalSelf Care - Period 1Traditional Chinese Medicine - Period 2Self 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 Participants8 Participants4 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Period 1
Not Hispanic or Latino
33 Participants67 Participants34 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Period 1
Unknown or Not Reported
2 Participants4 Participants2 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Period 2
Hispanic or Latino
10 Participants5 Participants5 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Period 2
Not Hispanic or Latino
73 Participants35 Participants38 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Period 2
Unknown or Not Reported
2 Participants2 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Period 1
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Period 1
Asian
1 Participants1 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Period 1
Black or African American
1 Participants2 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Period 1
More than one race
1 Participants2 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Period 1
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Period 1
Unknown or Not Reported
3 Participants8 Participants5 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Period 1
White
33 Participants66 Participants33 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Period 2
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Period 2
Asian
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Period 2
Black or African American
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Period 2
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Period 2
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Period 2
Unknown or Not Reported
13 Participants7 Participants6 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Period 2
White
72 Participants35 Participants37 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
39 participants79 participants40 participants42 participants43 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Period 1
Female
34 Participants68 Participants34 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Period 1
Male
5 Participants11 Participants6 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Period 2
Female
74 Participants37 Participants37 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Period 2
Male
11 Participants5 Participants6 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
EG003
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 390 / 400 / 430 / 42
other
Total, other adverse events
1 / 390 / 400 / 430 / 42
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 390 / 400 / 430 / 42

Outcome results

Primary

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Traditional Chinese Medicine - Period 1Characteristic Facial Pain ScorePeriod 1 - Pre-treatment6.52 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.24
Traditional Chinese Medicine - Period 1Characteristic Facial Pain ScorePeriod 1 - Post-treatment5.11 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.7
Self-care - Period 1Characteristic Facial Pain ScorePeriod 1 - Pre-treatment6.55 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.4
Self-care - Period 1Characteristic Facial Pain ScorePeriod 1 - Post-treatment5.47 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.09
Traditional Chinese Medicine - Period 2Characteristic Facial Pain ScorePeriod 2 - Pre-treatment5.34 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.54
Traditional Chinese Medicine - Period 2Characteristic Facial Pain ScorePeriod 2 - Post-treatment4.44 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.7
Self Care - Period 2Characteristic Facial Pain ScorePeriod 2 - Post-treatment4.93 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.54
Self Care - Period 2Characteristic Facial Pain ScorePeriod 2 - Pre-treatment5.22 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.43
Comparison: Participants were allocated to one of the two treatments in order to balance baseline CFP, a depression score, age, gender, and site (Tucson or Portland).p-value: 0.02Regression, Linear

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 25, 2026