Aims: To investigate the effects of adding orofacial treatment to cervical physical therapy in patients with chronic migraine and temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Methods: A total of 45 participants with chronic migraine and TMD aged 18 to 65 years were randomized into two groups: a cervical group (CG) and a cervical and orofacial group (COG). Both groups continued their medication regimens for migraine treatment and received physical therapy. The CG received physical therapy only in the cervical region, and the COG received physical therapy in both the cervical and orofacial regions. Both groups received six sessions of treatment that consisted of manual therapy and therapeutic exercise in the cervical region or the cervical and orofacial regions. Scores on the Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CF-PDI) and the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) were primary outcome variables, and the secondary outcome variables were scores on the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-11), pain intensity measured on a visual analog scale (VAS), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) in the temporal, masseter (2 points, M1 and M2) and extratrigeminal (wrist) regions, and maximal mouth opening (MMO). Data were recorded at baseline, posttreatment, and after 12 weeks of followup. The α level was set at .05 for all tests and two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) for within-and between-group interactions. Results: There were 22 CG participants (13.6% men and 86.4% women) and 23 COG participants (13% men and 87% women). The ANOVA analysis revealed statistically significant differences for group × time interaction in CF-PDI, HIT-6 in the last follow-up, pain intensity, PPTs in the trigeminal region, and MMO (P < .05), with a medium-large magnitude of effect. No statistically significant differences were found in the PPTs of the extratrigeminal region or in the TSK-11 (P > .05). Conclusion: Both groups reported a significant improvement in CF-PDI, HIT-6, and pain intensity. Cervical and orofacial treatment was more effective than cervical treatment alone for increasing PPTs in the trigeminal region and producing pain-free MMO. Physical therapy alone was not effective for increasing the PPTs in the extratrigeminal region (wrist) or decreasing the level of TSK-11.
Objective: This study aimed to assess mechanical hyperalgesia in the trigeminal and extra-trigeminal regions in patients with chronic migraine (CM) and temporomandibular disorders (TMD) in comparison to asymptomatic subjects and to determine the association between sensorimotor variables and psychological and disability variables and evaluate the prediction of a sensorimotor variables though psychological and disability variables in patients with CM and TMD. Material and methods: A total of 52 subjects with concomitant CM and TMD and 30 asymptomatic subjects were included in the study. The pressure pain threshold (PPT), maximal mouth opening (MMO) and a series of self-reported factors were compared. Results: There were 52 CM and TMD (92.3% women and 7.7% men; age ¼ 46.2 ± 9.5) and 30 asymptomatic subjects (80% women and 20% men; age ¼ 47.4 ± 10). Differences were found between patients with CM and TMD and asymptomatic participants (p < .01) when comparing the PPTs in the trigeminal and extra-trigeminal regions. The PPT for the trigeminal region was predicted by depressive symptoms (variance of 18%) as well as disability and craniofacial pain (variance of 20%). The extratrigeminal region PPT was predicted by depressive symptoms (variance of 10%), and pain-free MMO was predicted by disability and craniofacial pain (variance of 24%). Conclusions: This study suggests that patients with CM and TMD present with generalized mechanical hyperalgesia. In addition, an association between sensorimotor, psychological and disability variables was observed.
Patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) can become very complex. This article aims to highlight the importance of the multimodal and multidisciplinary approach in this type of patients to improve clinical outcomes. At present we have innumerable techniques and tools to approach this type of patients from a biopsychosocial model where active and adaptive type treatments are fundamental. There are various health professions that have competence in the treatment of TMD, however, although in the most complex cases should be treated simultaneously, still too many patients receive unique treatments and only from one point of view. This review exposes the treatments available from a clinical-scientific perspective and also emphasizes the importance of working in specialized units with those professionals who have competencies on the different conditions that may occur.
Objective To summarize the cervical physical examination characteristics in subjects with chronic primary headache and compare those with a healthy population and a population with episodic primary headache. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Subjects Humans ≥18 years old. At least one of the study groups should be constituted by subjects diagnosed with one of the chronic primary headache subtypes according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd Edition. Comparison Neck physical examination outcomes of subjects with chronic primary headache compared with a healthy population or subjects with episodic primary headache. Outcomes Forward head posture (FHP), cervical range of movement, motor control, neck muscle activity, and reproduction and resolution of symptoms. Methods Two reviewers assessed independently the MEDLINE, EMBASE, WOS, MEDES, PEDro, and CINAHL databases to select observational studies. First, both implemented an agreement for a search strategy. Then, they screened independently for duplicates, titles, abstracts, and full-text information. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare measures between groups. Results Twelve studies (N = 1,083) with moderate quality (mean ± SD = 7.75 ± 1.48 on the Newcastle Ottawa Scale) were selected for the qualitative analysis. The meta-analysis showed that patients with chronic primary headache presented greater forward head posture than asymptomatic participants (N = 275, Hg = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.25–1.1, Z = 3.14, P < 0.01) and patients with episodic primary headache (N = 268, Hg = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.13–0.65, Z = 2.98, P < 0.01). Conclusions There is moderate to strong evidence that patients with chronic primary headache present greater FHP than asymptomatic individuals and moderate evidence that patients with chronic primary headache present greater forward head posture than those with episodic primary headache.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.