Skip to content

Botulinum Toxin Versus Placebo Injections to Temporalis and Masseter Muscles

Comparison of Botulinum Toxin Versus Placebo Injections to Temporalis and Masseter Muscles in the Management of Myofascial Pain Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03223298
Enrollment
75
Registered
2017-07-21
Start date
2018-08-31
Completion date
2020-03-13
Last updated
2023-02-14

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

Conditions

Myofascial Pain, Myofascial Pain Syndrome, Pain, Head, Pain Syndrome, Temporomandibular Disorder

Keywords

Myofascial Pain, Myofascial Pain Disorder, Maxillofacial Pain, Masseter Muscle, Temporalis Muscle, Botulinum Toxin

Brief summary

This study aims to determine whether the injection of botulinum toxin A or placebo (unpreserved 0.9% sodium chloride) into the masseter and temporalis muscles provides pain relief and improved jaw function in those who suffer from myofascial pain disorder. The study hypothesis is that botulinum toxin A injection is superior to placebo. The specific research questions are: 1. Is the injection of botulinum toxin A superior to placebo for the improvement in pain? 2. Is the injection of botulinum toxin A superior to placebo for the improvement in function or quality of life (QOL)? 3. Are there any adverse effects that result from injection of botulinum toxin A or placebo into the masseters and temporalis muscles? Limited data exists to support the use of botulinum toxin A in the management of myofascial pain disorder of the masticatory region. Botulinum toxin A is not FDA approved for intra-muscular injection within the masticatory region. Its use in the masticatory region is considered off-label but performed without significant known complications. This study will provide the opportunity to quantitate and qualitate any complications in a large prospective sample of patients.

Detailed description

Myofascial pain is classically used to describe pain experienced in the masticatory muscles and its associated structures (Freund 1999). It afflicts nearly 10% of Americans (Freund 2000). There have been many described treatments such as the use of oral appliances, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications, physiotherapy, behavioral therapy and counseling, acupuncture, and botulinum toxin injections (Freund 2000). However, no single treatment has been found to be significantly superior to the others (Freund 2000). This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study. Subjects will be recruited from the divisions of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery from all sites. Patients aged 18-65 years with myofascial pain involving the temporalis and masseters are eligible to enter the study. A complete history and physical examination will be performed for all patients in order to make an accurate diagnosis. The research diagnostic criteria (RDC/TMD) will be used to assign a diagnosis of myofascial pain of the masticatory region. All investigators and site-specific data collectors will be trained and calibrated in physical examination techniques and data collection to ensure uniformity between sites. Patients will complete a visual analog scale regarding pain during their screening appointment. To participate in the study, the subject must have greater than or equal to 3.5/10 on the visual analog scale of pain. Informed written consent will be obtained from all patients. Any patient lacking the capacity to make medical decisions will be excluded from the study, although they will be treated as deemed medically necessary. Consent will be written at the sixth grade level, and all potential subjects will be asked to verbally repeat the purpose, methods, and required follow-up to ensure adequate understanding. The site specific PI will educate fellow faculty and referring departments that the study is enrolling new subjects, advertising is anticipated, and referring physicians will not receive any financial compensation. The intent is to enroll a total of 110 subjects from all sites. The study participants will be reimbursed $25 per treatment visit for their participation. Previous studies have demonstrated a reduction of pain as indicated on the visual analogue scale of 45% and 32% with the use of intramuscular botulinum toxin A injections into masseter and temporalis (Freund 1999, Guarda-Nardini 2012). Von Lindern et. al. found a mean reduction of 3.2 points on a visual analog scale in the verum group. Based on the preliminary data and the sample size calculations estimating a difference in mean pre-post VAS change between groups of 1 point or greater (on a scale of 1-10), we plan to enroll a total of 110 subjects. With 50 patients in the botulinum toxin A injection group and 50 patients in the placebo group (N=100), the study will have more than 90% power to detect a difference in mean in pre-post change between groups of 1.0 point or greater on VAS, using a two-sided t-test and assuming a standard deviation of 1.5 for the mean difference. This calculation allows for 10% attrition rate. An intent-to-treat design will be followed and all subjects will have scheduled outcome evaluations until the end of the study, death of the subject, or subject refusal. Subjects will be withdrawn from their randomly assigned treatment for considerations of subject safety only. Descriptive statistics including mean, standard deviation, median, range, frequency, and percent will be calculated for the entire cohort as well as by the study arm (botulinum toxin A and unpreserved 0.9% sodium chloride) to assess the results of randomization and identify potential confounders. The primary analyses of the data will be performed according to subjects' original treatment assignment (i.e., intention-to-treat analyses) and the inclusion of all data from all subjects randomized in the final analysis. To assess the primary endpoint of improvement of pain on a visual analog scale (VAS) between pre-op, 1, 2, and month post-op, and 3 months post-op, a repeated measure of analysis of variance will be performed with one between subject factor (botulinum toxin A versus placebo) and one within subject factor (time). This analysis will also be used for the secondary endpoints: function (MIO/jaw limitation scale) and quality of life (SF12). In the event of significant loss to follow-up, we will explore the use of a linear mixed model to assess the independent effect of the study group on VAS over the study visits. The paired t-test, or the signed-rank test as appropriate, will be used to assess change in pain, function, and QOL between pairs of relevant time points for both study arms. To assess the difference in proportion of adverse events between the botulinum toxin A and placebo groups, either the chi-square or Fisher's exact test will be used, as appropriate. All p-values will be two-sided with statistical significance evaluated at the 0.05 alpha level. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (95% CI) will be calculated to assess the precision of the obtained estimates. All analyses will be performed in SAS Version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Note: This section was drafted in conjunction with Dr. Paul Christos and Gulce Askin, MPH in the Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Healthcare Policy and Research. They will be aiding in protocol design and development, data management, study implementation, study monitoring, and data analysis and reporting. Adverse events will be reported to the Data and Safety Monitoring Board every six months. The participants will be provided with the phone number of the primary investigator and co-investigators for use in reporting any adverse events. The study participants will also be questioned at one, two, and and three months post-treatment for the occurrence of any adverse events. The report of any such events will provide details including severity, relationship to treatment, onset, duration, and outcome. The Data and Safety Monitoring Board will regularly review these reports, and should any trend develop that suggests significant adverse outcomes, the study will be discontinued. If any serious adverse events occur (death, life-threatening, those involving prolonged hospitalization or disability), the independent study monitor, other study sites, IRBs, and DSMB will be notified with 24 hours in the case of death or 72 hours in the event of other serious adverse events. IRB approval for this study is currently in process (assigned protocol number 1607017383). Pending approval from the IRB for each involved site, research investigators will honor their responsibility to safeguard the rights and welfare of individuals who are or may become subjects of research. Investigators will also maintain compliance with Department of Health and Human Services regulations. All requirements and determinations made by the IRB will be followed to minimize unnecessary risks to subjects. The investigators will abide by procedures consistent with sound research design. Botulinum toxin A is currently not FDA approved for use in myofascial pain disorder of the masticatory region. If the IRB deems its use a subject risk, an application for investigational new drug (IND) will be submitted to the FDA under the research or noncommercial category. This requirement is not anticipated given the routine use of botulinum toxin A, previous studies demonstrating benefit with minimal risk, and its existing FDA approval for use in the masseter and temporalis muscles for orofacial dystonia/dyskinesia.

Interventions

DRUGBotulinum toxin type A

37.5 units injected into each masseter muscle and 12.5 units into each temporalis muscle

DRUG0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection

1cc syringe

Sponsors

New York Presbyterian Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
Allergan
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
Weill Medical College of Cornell University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator)

Masking description

Randomization will be carried out by the biostatistics team at Weill Cornell. This will provide assurance that there will be equal patient allocation to both study arms, at each participating site, in the event that the target sample size is not reached. The list will be maintained by the investigational pharmacy. A designated research assistant will be identified at each site to prepare the interventional medication (botulinum versus normal saline). The identity of the agent injected will be unknown to the surgeon as the agent will be drawn up by an assistant in a masked syringe immediately prior to each procedure and labeled with the patient's identifier. Only one assistant at each site will know the identity of the agents during the trial.

Intervention model description

Study participants will be randomly allocated to one of two treatment arms (injection of botulinum versus placebo). Blocked randomization will be performed at each of the participating sites. They will be stratified based on study site.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* 18-65 years of age * Ability to give informed consent * Myofascial pain of masticatory muscles as defined according to the RDC/TMD criteria * Baseline pain measured by the subject ≥3.5/10 on visual analog scale

Exclusion criteria

* Baseline pain measured by the subject \<3.5/10 on visual analog scale * Central/Neuropathic pain disorder affecting the masticatory muscles * Temporomandibular Joint Arthralgia that is more severe than the myofascial pain disorder affecting the masticatory muscles * Previous Temporomandibular Joint Surgery * Systemic arthropathies * Fibromyalgia * Allergy to study medications * Traumatic injury of masticatory muscles or temporomandibular joint within last 12 months * Mandibular fracture within last 12 months * Pregnancy or breast feeding * Cervical radiculopathy or surgery * Prior botox injection in the masticatory muscles * Initiation of additional treatment of MPD within the past 3 months

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in Jaw Pain as Reported by Patient on Visual Analog Scale (VAS)Pre-intervention, Change at 1 month post-intervention, Change at 2 months post-intervention, Change at 3 months post-interventionVisual Analog Scale ranging from no pain (0) to pain as bad as it could possibly be (100)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Jaw Function as Measured by Jaw Function Limitation ScalePre-intervention, 1 month post-intervention, 2 months post-intervention, 3 months post-interventionA series of yes or no questions to determine what activities a patient's jaw problem prevents or limits them from doing. A high score of 7 indicates severe jaw limitation, a low score of 0 indicates no jaw limitation.
Change in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)Pre-intervention, Change at 1 month post-intervention, Change at 2 months post-intervention, Change at 3 months post-interventionMouth opening measurements in mm both when patient is in pain and not in pain. This measurement is taken from the maxillary central incisor to mandibular central incisor.
Change in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Pre-intervention, Change at 1 month post-intervention, Change at 2 months post-intervention, Change at 3 months post-interventionShort Form 36 is a set of generic, coherent, and easily administered quality-of-life measures. These measures rely upon patient self-reporting and are utilized for routine monitoring and assessment of care outcomes in adult patients. A high score of 100 on this survey indicates the patient is self-reporting a high quality-of-life, a low score of 0 indicates a low quality-of-life.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Botulinum Toxin Type A
The intramuscular injections will be performed with the patient awake in the oral and maxillofacial surgery clinic. Three injection sites into bilateral masseter muscles and two injection sites into bilateral temporalis muscles will be identified by having the patient clench. The sites will be marked with a surgical pen prior to injections. The skin at the injection sites will be cleaned with an alcohol swab. Via a 1cc TB syringe and a 30-gauge needle, the subject will then receive 100 units of reconstituted botulinum toxin A. 37.5 units will be injected into each masseter muscle and 12.5 units into each temporalis muscle. A written post-operative instruction sheet will be provided to all patients. Botulinum toxin type A: 37.5 units injected into each masseter muscle and 12.5 units into each temporalis muscle
38
0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection
The intramuscular injections will be performed with the patient awake in the oral and maxillofacial surgery clinic. Three injection sites into bilateral masseter muscles and two injection sites into bilateral temporalis muscles will be identified by having the patient clench. The sites will be marked with a surgical pen prior to injections. The skin at the injection sites will be cleaned with an alcohol swab. Via a 1cc TB syringe and a 30-gauge needle, the subject will then receive unpreserved 0.9% sodium chloride. A written post-operative instruction sheet will be provided to all patients. 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection: 1cc syringe
37
Total75

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicBotulinum Toxin Type A0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionTotal
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
38 Participants37 Participants75 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
6 Participants7 Participants13 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
31 Participants28 Participants59 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
1 Participants2 Participants3 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Asian / Pacific Islander
9 Participants4 Participants13 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Black or African American
0 Participants2 Participants2 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Hispanic or Latino
6 Participants7 Participants13 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Other
1 Participants2 Participants3 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
White
22 Participants22 Participants44 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
29 Participants32 Participants61 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
9 Participants5 Participants14 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 380 / 37
other
Total, other adverse events
6 / 383 / 37
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 380 / 37

Outcome results

Primary

Change in Jaw Pain as Reported by Patient on Visual Analog Scale (VAS)

Visual Analog Scale ranging from no pain (0) to pain as bad as it could possibly be (100)

Time frame: Pre-intervention, Change at 1 month post-intervention, Change at 2 months post-intervention, Change at 3 months post-intervention

Population: Patient retention varied per time point

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Jaw Pain as Reported by Patient on Visual Analog Scale (VAS)Pre-intervention58 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 15
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Jaw Pain as Reported by Patient on Visual Analog Scale (VAS)Change at 2 months post-intervention-18 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 24
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Jaw Pain as Reported by Patient on Visual Analog Scale (VAS)Change at 3 months post-intervention-17 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 22
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Jaw Pain as Reported by Patient on Visual Analog Scale (VAS)Change at 1 months post-intervention-19 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 24
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Jaw Pain as Reported by Patient on Visual Analog Scale (VAS)Change at 3 months post-intervention-16 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 23
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Jaw Pain as Reported by Patient on Visual Analog Scale (VAS)Pre-intervention54 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Jaw Pain as Reported by Patient on Visual Analog Scale (VAS)Change at 1 months post-intervention-14 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 23
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Jaw Pain as Reported by Patient on Visual Analog Scale (VAS)Change at 2 months post-intervention-18 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 23
Comparison: 3-month mean change (from pre-op) in Jaw Pain compared between the Botox group and Placebo group.p-value: 0.8Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Secondary

Change in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)

Mouth opening measurements in mm both when patient is in pain and not in pain. This measurement is taken from the maxillary central incisor to mandibular central incisor.

Time frame: Pre-intervention, Change at 1 month post-intervention, Change at 2 months post-intervention, Change at 3 months post-intervention

Population: Patient retention varied per time point

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)MIO with Pain: Pre-intervention41 mmStandard Deviation 7
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)MIO without Pain: Pre-Intervention34 mmStandard Deviation 7
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)Change in MIO with Pain at 1-month post-intervention0 mmStandard Deviation 5
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)Change in MIO without Pain at 1-month post-intervention1 mmStandard Deviation 6
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)Change in MIO with Pain at 2-months post-intervention-1 mmStandard Deviation 7
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)Change in MIO without Pain at 2-months post-intervention-1 mmStandard Deviation 8
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)Change in MIO with Pain at 3-months post-intervention-1 mmStandard Deviation 5
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)Change in MIO without Pain at 3-months post-intervention2 mmStandard Deviation 8
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)Change in MIO without Pain at 3-months post-intervention4 mmStandard Deviation 8
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)MIO with Pain: Pre-intervention42 mmStandard Deviation 8
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)Change in MIO with Pain at 2-months post-intervention1 mmStandard Deviation 7
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)MIO without Pain: Pre-Intervention34 mmStandard Deviation 10
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)Change in MIO with Pain at 3-months post-intervention1 mmStandard Deviation 8
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)Change in MIO with Pain at 1-month post-intervention2 mmStandard Deviation 6
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)Change in MIO without Pain at 2-months post-intervention3 mmStandard Deviation 8
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Jaw Function as Measured by Maximum Interincisal Opening (MIO)Change in MIO without Pain at 1-month post-intervention4 mmStandard Deviation 8
Comparison: Change in MIO with Pain at 3-months post-intervention compared between Botox group and Placebo group.p-value: 0.3Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: Change in MIO without Pain at 3-months post-intervention compared between Botox group and Placebo group.p-value: 0.5Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Secondary

Change in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36

Short Form 36 is a set of generic, coherent, and easily administered quality-of-life measures. These measures rely upon patient self-reporting and are utilized for routine monitoring and assessment of care outcomes in adult patients. A high score of 100 on this survey indicates the patient is self-reporting a high quality-of-life, a low score of 0 indicates a low quality-of-life.

Time frame: Pre-intervention, Change at 1 month post-intervention, Change at 2 months post-intervention, Change at 3 months post-intervention

Population: Patient retention varied per time point

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Pre-intervention - General Health Score75 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 3 months post intervention - Energy/Fatigue Score5 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 3 months post intervention - Role Limitations - Physical Health Score0 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Pre-intervention - Emotional Well-Being Score76 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 3 months post-intervention - Physical Functioning Score0 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 1 month post intervention - Emotional Well-Being Score2 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Pre-intervention - Role Limitations - Emotional Score100 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 2 months post intervention - Emotional Well-Being Score4 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 1 month post intervention - Physical Functioning Score0 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 3 months post intervention - Emotional Well-Being Score4 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 1 month post intervention - Role Limitations - Emotional Score0 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Pre-intervention - Social Functioning Score100 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 1 month post intervention - Social Functioning Score0 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Pre-intervention - Role Limitations - Physical Health Score100 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 2 months post intervention - Social Functioning Score0 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 2 months post intervention - Role Limitations - Emotional Score0 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 3 months post intervention - Social Functioning Score0 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Pre-intervention - Physical Functioning Score100 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Pre-intervention - Pain Score78 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 3 months post intervention - Role Limitations - Emotional Score0 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 1 month post intervention - Pain Score0 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 1 month post intervention - Role Limitations - Physical Health Score0 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 2 months post intervention - Pain Score0 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Pre-intervention - Energy/Fatigue Score50 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 3 months post intervention - Pain Score0 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 2 months post-intervention - Physical Functioning Score0 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 1 month post intervention - General Health Score0 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 1 month post intervention - Energy/Fatigue Score5 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 2 months post intervention - General Health Score2 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 2 months post intervention - Role Limitations- Physical Health Score0 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 3 months post intervention - General Health Score0 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 2 months post intervention - Energy/Fatigue Score2 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 3 months post intervention - General Health Score5 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Pre-intervention - Social Functioning Score88 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Pre-intervention - Physical Functioning Score100 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 1 month post intervention - Physical Functioning Score0 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 2 months post-intervention - Physical Functioning Score0 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 3 months post-intervention - Physical Functioning Score0 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Pre-intervention - Role Limitations - Physical Health Score100 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 1 month post intervention - Role Limitations - Physical Health Score0 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 2 months post intervention - Role Limitations- Physical Health Score0 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 3 months post intervention - Role Limitations - Physical Health Score0 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Pre-intervention - Role Limitations - Emotional Score100 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 1 month post intervention - Role Limitations - Emotional Score0 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 2 months post intervention - Role Limitations - Emotional Score0 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 3 months post intervention - Role Limitations - Emotional Score0 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Pre-intervention - Energy/Fatigue Score60 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 1 month post intervention - Energy/Fatigue Score0 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 2 months post intervention - Energy/Fatigue Score5 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 3 months post intervention - Energy/Fatigue Score0 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Pre-intervention - Emotional Well-Being Score68 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 1 month post intervention - Emotional Well-Being Score4 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 2 months post intervention - Emotional Well-Being Score8 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 3 months post intervention - Emotional Well-Being Score4 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 1 month post intervention - Social Functioning Score0 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 2 months post intervention - Social Functioning Score0 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 3 months post intervention - Social Functioning Score0 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Pre-intervention - Pain Score58 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 1 month post intervention - Pain Score10 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 2 months post intervention - Pain Score11 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Pre-intervention - General Health Score70 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 1 month post intervention - General Health Score0 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 2 months post intervention - General Health Score5 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionChange in Objectively Assessed Quality of Life as Measured by Short Form 36Change at 3 months post intervention - Pain Score10 score on a scale
Comparison: Mean change at 3 months post intervention - General Health Score, compared between Botox group and Placebo group.p-value: 0.4Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Secondary

Jaw Function as Measured by Jaw Function Limitation Scale

A series of yes or no questions to determine what activities a patient's jaw problem prevents or limits them from doing. A high score of 7 indicates severe jaw limitation, a low score of 0 indicates no jaw limitation.

Time frame: Pre-intervention, 1 month post-intervention, 2 months post-intervention, 3 months post-intervention

Population: Patient retention varied per time point

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Botulinum Toxin Type AJaw Function as Measured by Jaw Function Limitation ScalePre-intervention0.38 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AJaw Function as Measured by Jaw Function Limitation Scale1 month post-intervention0.38 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AJaw Function as Measured by Jaw Function Limitation Scale2 months post-intervention0.25 score on a scale
Botulinum Toxin Type AJaw Function as Measured by Jaw Function Limitation Scale3 months post-intervention0.25 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionJaw Function as Measured by Jaw Function Limitation Scale3 months post-intervention0.25 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionJaw Function as Measured by Jaw Function Limitation ScalePre-intervention0.38 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionJaw Function as Measured by Jaw Function Limitation Scale2 months post-intervention0.25 score on a scale
0.9% Sodium Chloride InjectionJaw Function as Measured by Jaw Function Limitation Scale1 month post-intervention0.25 score on a scale
Comparison: 3-month mean Jaw Function Limitation Scale score compared between Botox group and placebo group.p-value: 0.5Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026