Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been commonly used for the treatment of painful musculoskeletal conditions, but the results of previous studies on this subject are controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of LLLT in the management of patients with myogenic temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs). In this randomized, double-blind clinical trial, 20 patients with myogenic TMD were randomly divided into laser and placebo groups. In the laser group, a pulsed 810-nm low-level laser (average power 50 mW, peak power 80 W, 1,500 Hz, 120 s, 6 J, and 3.4 J/cm(2) per point) was used on painful muscles three times a week for 4 weeks. In the placebo group, the treatment was the same as that in the laser group, but without energy output. The patients were evaluated before laser therapy (T1), after six sessions of laser application (T2), at the end of treatment (T3), and 1 month after the last application (T4), and the level of pain and the amount of mouth opening were measured. There was a significant increase in mouth opening and a significant reduction of pain symptoms in the laser group (p < 0.05). A similar improvement was not observed in the placebo group (p > 0.05). Between-group comparisons revealed no significant difference in pain intensity and mouth opening measurement at any of the evaluation time points (p > 0.05). LLLT can produce a significant improvement in pain level and mouth opening in patients affected with myogenic TMD.

A randomized clinical trial wasperformed to evaluate the efficacy of three treatment options, including anterior positioning splint therapy, physical therapy, and physical therapy in addition to splint therapy, in terms of treatment outcome, in patients with painful temporomandibular joint clicking. Sixty patients suffering from acute pain and dysfunction were divided randomly into three treatment groups. Twenty patients underwent anterior positioning splint therapy (group I), 20 patients received solely physical therapy (group II), and 20 subjects received physical treatment in addition to splinting (group III). All patients were examined before and after the treatment using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and digital palpation of joint sounds. The data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis, one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests at a significance level of P < 0.05. In comparison with the baseline, subjective pain was decreased significantly (P < 0.05) in all three groups. A significant difference was observed between groups I and II (P <0.05), whereas no significant difference was detected between groups II and III. Six patients in group III did not continue the treatment after physical therapy. The numbers of pain-free patients were 12 in group I, 5 in group II and 9 in group III. We observed a reduction in the frequency of joint sounds across the entire sample (P < 0.05). Anterior positioning splint therapy appears to be the best treatment method for reduction of pain and joint sounds in patients with TMD, compared with the other two methods studied. (J Oral Sci 53, 349-354, 2011)

LLLT using the present laser parameters was no more effective than the placebo treatment for reducing pain and improving mouth opening in patients with TMJ osteoarthritis.

No abstract

PurposeThis study was performed to compare the condylar position in patients with temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs) and a normal group by using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).Materials and MethodsIn the TMD group, 25 patients (5 men and 20 women) were randomly selected among the ones suffering from TMD according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD). The control group consisted of 25 patients (8 men and 17 women) with normal temporomandibular joints (TMJs) who were referred to the radiology department in order to undergo CBCT scanning for implant treatment in the posterior maxilla. Linear measurements from the superior, anterior, and posterior joint spaces between the condyle and glenoid fossa were made through defined landmarks in the sagittal view. The inclination of articular eminence was also determined.ResultsThe mean anterior joint space was 2.3 mm in the normal group and 2.8 mm in the TMD group, respectively. The results showed that there was a significant correlation between the superior and posterior joint spaces in both the normal and TMD groups, but it was only in the TMD group that the correlation coefficient among the dimensions of anterior and superior spaces was significant. There was a significant correlation between the inclination of articular eminence and the size of the superior and posterior spaces in the normal group.ConclusionThe average dimension of the anterior joint space was different between the two groups. CBCT could be considered a useful diagnostic imaging modality for TMD patients.

Background: Application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has been promising and approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018, but effects differ between patients. Knowledge about clinical predictors of rTMS response may help to increase clinical efficacy but is not available so far. Methods: In a retrospective study, we investigated the efficacy of rTMS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) or supplementary motor area (SMA) in 65 pharmaco-resistant OCD outpatients recruited for rTMS treatment from July 2015 to May 2017. Patients received either SMA rTMS (n = 38) or bilateral DLPFC rTMS (n = 27) in case of reporting higher affective and depressive symptoms in addition to the primary OCD symptoms. OCD symptoms and depression/anxiety states were measured at baseline (before the 1st session) and after the 20th session of rTMS. Additionally, we performed a binary logistic regression analysis on the demographic and clinical variables based on the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) 3-factor and 2-factor models and individual items to investigate potential predictors of rTMS response. Results: Patients' scores in Y-BOCS and Beck anxiety/depression inventories were significantly decreased following rTMS treatment. 46.2% of all patients responded to rTMS, based on the criterion of at least a 30% reduction in Y-BOCS scores. There was no significant difference between response rates of patients in DLPFC and SMA groups. No significant demographic predictors of rTMS efficacy were identified. The factors "obsession severity", "resistance" and "disturbance" and the "interference due to obsessions" and "resistance against compulsions" items of the Y-BOCS significantly predicted response to rTMS.

Background: Application of the repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has been promising but effects differ between patients. Knowledge about clinical predictors of rTMS response may help to increase clinical efficacy but is not available so far. Methods: In a retrospective study, we investigated the efficacy of rTMS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) or supplementary motor area (SMA) in 65 pharamcoresistant OCD outpatients recruited for the rTMS treatment from July 2015 to May 2017. Patients received either SMA rTMS or bilateral DLPFC rTMS based on their symptoms and OCD symptoms and depression/anxiety states were measured at baseline (before the 1st session) and after the 20th session of rTMS. Additionally, we performed a binary logistic regression analysis on the demographic variables and clinical variables based on the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) items and factors to investigate demographic and clinical predictors for rTMS response in the rTMS responders and non-responders. Results: Patients’ scores in Y-BOCS and Beck anxiety/depression inventories were significantly decreased following rTMS treatment. 46.2% of all patients responded to rTMS, based on at least a 30% reduction in Y-BOCS scores. The stimulation target (DLPFC vs. SMA) did not significantly differ in rTMS efficacy. No significant demographic predictors were found. “Interference due to obsessions”, “resistance against compulsions” and “disturbance” factor could significantly predict response failure to rTMS. Conclusions: Patients with less intrusive/interfering thoughts and low scores in the “disturbance” factor might benefit more from rTMS treatment. Identifying clinical and non-clinical predictors of response are needed to personalize and adapt rTMS protocols in pharmaco-resistant OCD patients. Interpretation of rTMS efficacy should be cautious due to the Lack of sham condition.

No abstract