Skip to content

Facial pain treatment in individuals with Fibromyalgia: effect of laser therapy versus anesthetic infiltration.

Orofacial pain treatment in individuals with Fibromyalgia: Effect of laser therapy versus anesthetic infiltration of trigger points

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
REBEC
Registry ID
RBR-8k5yzn
Enrollment
Unknown
Registered
2017-01-11
Start date
2013-03-25
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-10-27

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

Conditions

Fibromyalgia. Orofacial Pain.

Interventions

The sample was estimated in 66 subjects (n = n1 + n2) divided equally into two groups (n 1 = n 2). Individuals diagnosed with FM and pain in the orofacial area were initially selected from a database
Drug
Device
E02.594
E03.155.086.231

Sponsors

Universidade Federal da Paraíba
Lead Sponsor
Universidade Federal da Paraíba
Collaborator

Eligibility

Age
18 Years to 76 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Patients with fibromyalgia according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria; aged between 18 and 76 years; sufficient autonomy and cognitive levels to understand procedures and follow instructions without help of another person; report of orofacial pain in the last 3 months.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Patients who did not voluntarily participate in this research; allergic to lidocaine; or who have changed their systemic medications in the last 3 months treatment.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
It was expected that both anesthetic infiltration and laser application would reduce orofacial pain in patients with fibromyalgia. The evaluation of the outcome was done using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and tenderness to palpation from the observation of a decrease of at least 2 points on the VAS and reduction of at least one muscle with sensitivity in the pre- and post-intervention measurements.;There was a lower frequency of tender points after both treatments, with responsively in all types of muscles analyzed (p0.05).

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Perception of the patient regarding the effectiveness of the treatments and improvement of their well being, which was evaluated by means of a questionnaire.;The patient’s perception showed that both treatments were effective, with 100% of positive response in Group A against 97% in Group B. Regarding the well-being after the treatment, 3% (n=1) of the patients in Group A related that the treatment did not improve welfare. This fact was also observed in Group B, with higher proportion 18% (n=6) (Table 4). None of the volunteers complained about the increase of pain at the conclusion of the study.

Countries

Brazil

Contacts

Public ContactRebeca Celicia de Souza

Universidade Federal da Paraíba

rebecacvsouza@gmail.com+55(83)996337949

Outcome results

None listed

Source: REBEC (via WHO ICTRP)