Facial pain
Conditions
Interventions
A total of 28 participants were voluntarily recruited by advertising posted inside the campus of Aarhus University and on a webpage of the Section for Orofacial Pain and Jaw Function (http://odont.au.
session 1, i.e., baseline
session 2, i.e., all participants classified as bruxers or controls randomly received either an injection of NFG or isotonic saline (IS) into the right masseter muscle
session 3, i.e., 72 h post-injection in combination with a TCT as shown in Figure 1. It resulted in a study design with 4 arms: IS_Control (i.e., Control participants who received IS injection)
IS_Bruxer (i.e., Bruxer who received IS injection)
NGF_Control (i.e., Control participants who received NGF injection)
and NGF_Bruxer (i.e., Bruxer who received NGF injection). Participants were also asked to score the intensity of clinical symptoms related to their jaw muscles, defined as pain and function, fill out
E02.621.820
Sponsors
Aarhus University
Universidade Federal de Pelotas
Eligibility
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: The volunteers participating in the study were in good general health; of both gender, aged less than 18 years; and with no orofacial pain complaints in the last 30 days or chronic pain disorders.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Presence of dental or medical illness; regular intake of medication such as antidepressants; anticonvulsants; or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories; any diagnosis of psychiatric or personality disorders; and the presence of contraindications to transcranial magnetic stimulation (i.e., metal implants in the head; implanted electronic devices; history of epilepsy and if they were pregnant) were defined as exclusion criteria.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Right masseter muscle motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude was assessed at two-time points, i.e., at baseline and 72 h post-either nerve growth factor or isotonic saline injection in combination with a tooth-clenching task. The MEPs were assessed by stimulus-response (S–R) curves and motor cortex mapping. S–R curves were constructed in steps of MT, from T–10% T+20% to T+60% (i.e., respectively at 90%, 100%, 120%, and 160% MT), where MT was the resting or active MT measured at the specific time of creating the S–R curve. | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| The accuracy and precision of jaw movements; clinical assessment of jaw pain intensity and function were assessed at two time points, i.e., at baseline and 72 h post-either NGF or IS injection in combination with a tooth-clenching task. Indeed, the psychological and sleep conditions were assessed only at baseline (secondary outcomes). ;For assessing jaw pain and function, psychological traits, and sleep quality, the participants were asked to score the intensity of clinical symptoms in their jaw muscles, defined as pain and function, on 0–10 numeric rating scale (NRS) at baseline and 72 h post-injection. Care was taken to explain the different symptoms. The intensity of jaw pain at rest and evoked by chewing, considering each session was rated on a 0–10 NRS, where 0 means “no pain at all” and 10 means “the worst pain imaginable.” Pain-free mouth opening (mm) and perceived chewing ability (PCA) were measured, respectively, according to the DC/TMD examination guidelines. PCA questions were scored and summed using a 7-point Likert scale, and higher scores indicated lower perceived chewing ability. In addition, the following questionnaires were applied as described in previous studies: Jaw Function Limitation Scale – 20 (JFLS–20), Oral Behavior Checklist (OBC), PSQI, Generalized Anxiety Disorders–7 (GAD–7) and Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ–9). | — |
Countries
Denmark
Contacts
Public ContactNoéli Boscato
Universidade Federal de Pelotas
Outcome results
None listed