To compare pain characteristics, impact of pain and characteristics of patients withpainful root-filled teeth with and without signs of inflammatory dental disease. Thiscross-sectional study was performed in the Public Dental Health services, RegionÖrebro County, Sweden. Adult patients with ≥1 root-filled tooth identified at theirregular check-up were included and assigned to one of two groups; those with ≥1sign of inflammatory dental disease (DD+) and those without any such sign (DD−).Patients/teeth were compared regarding pain characteristics (intensity, frequency,duration, quality and provoking factors), impact of pain (medication intake, impacton life) and patient characteristics as background factors (general health, other bodilyand orofacial pain). Statistics included descriptive data (frequency tables) and groupcomparisons (Chi-square, Fisher’s Exact and Mann-Whitney U-tests). The DD+ groupincluded 27 participants (30 teeth) and the DD− group 22 participants (23 teeth).On average, pain intensity was mild, the frequency most often recurrent, and theimpact was low. Average pain duration since onset exceeded 2 years in both groups.The only observed between-group differences were average pain intensity; 3.1 (0–10Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)) in DD− group compared to 1.6 for DD+ (p = 0.030),and tenderness to apical palpation; only reported in the DD+ group. The similaritiesin clinical presentation between the two groups underscore the difficulties in correctlydistinguishing between pain of odontogenic and non-odontogenic origin in root-filledteeth with a standard clinical investigation. Additional diagnostic methods need to beinvestigated for their ability to differentiate between tooth pain or discomfort of differentorigins

Background: Despite advances in temporomandibular disorders' (TMDs) diagnosis, the diagnostic process continues to be problematic in non-specialist settings.

Objective: To complete a Delphi process to shorten the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) to a brief DC/TMD (bDC/TMD) for expedient clinical diagnosis and initial management.

Methods: An international Delphi panel was created with 23 clinicians representing major specialities, general dentistry and related fields. The process comprised a full day workshop, seven virtual meetings, six rounds of electronic discussion and finally an open consultation at a virtual international symposium.

Results: Within the physical axis (Axis 1), the self-report Symptom Questionnaire of the DC/TMD did not require shortening from 14 items for the bDC/TMD. The compulsory use of the TMD pain screener was removed reducing the total number of Axis 1 items by 18%. The DC/TMD Axis 1 10-section examination protocol (25 movements, up to 12 sets of bilateral palpations) was reduced to four sections in the bDC/TMD protocol involving three movements and three sets of palpations. Axis I then resulted in two groups of diagnoses: painful TMD (inclusive of secondary headache), and common joint-related TMD with functional implications. The psychosocial axis (Axis 2) was shortened to an ultra-brief 11 item assessment.

Conclusion: The bDC/TMD represents a substantially reduced and likely expedited method to establish (grouping) diagnoses in TMDs. This may provide greater utility for settings requiring less granular diagnoses for the implementation of initial treatment, for example non-specialist general dental practice.

Clinical pain is often linked to poor body mechanics, with individuals sometimes presenting multiple painful disorders. Such disorders may be influenced by behaviors that affect the general resiliency and health of the musculoskeletal system. We aimed to develop a self-reported scale using the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study questions on work-related body mechanical exposures. An expert panel identified 41 variables having content validity for musculoskeletal problems. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on a random selection of 50% of the cohort (n=6,789 adults); the remaining was reserved for confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), item response theory (IRT) item calibration, and differential item functioning investigations. Supported by standard measure development methods and fit criteria, the final unidimensional item bank contains 13 items. Overall CFA statistics (root mean square error of approximation=0.09; comparative fit index=0.96; Tucker-Lewis index=0.96; standardized root mean residuals=0.05) indicated excellent single-factor model fit and appropriateness of IRT modeling and calibration. Expert review and item information values (score-precision) guided selection of an 8-item short form with acceptable score-level reliabilities (≥0.70) for T-scores=39-80+. This measure provides reliable assessment of body mechanics strain in adults and can be useful when evaluating different contributions to musculoskeletal problems affecting pain-treatment success in future clinical research. Perspective: This article presents the development and psychometric properties of a new measure, "Work-related Body Mechanics and Strain Scale (WR-BMSS)." The scale has 13-items or alternatively an 8-item short form. This measure could potentially help clinicians who seek to assess how musculoskeletal problems may contribute to patient pain and disability.

BACKGROUND: The Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) for use in adults is in use worldwide. Until now, no version of this instrument for use in adolescents has been proposed.

OBJECTIVE: To present comprehensive and short-form adaptations of the adult version of DC/TMD that are appropriate for use with adolescents in clinical and research settings.

METHODS: International experts in TMDs and experts in pain psychology participated in a Delphi process to identify ways of adapting the DC/TMD protocol for physical and psychosocial assessment of adolescents.

RESULTS: The proposed adaptation defines adolescence as ages 10-19 years. Changes in the physical diagnosis (Axis I) include (i) adapting the language of the Demographics and the Symptom Questionnaires to be developmentally appropriate for adolescents, (ii) adding two general health questionnaires, one for the adolescent patient and one for their caregivers, and (iii) replacing the TMD Pain Screener with the 3Q/TMD questionnaire. Changes in the psychosocial assessment (Axis II) include (i) adapting the language of the Graded Chronic Pain Scale to be developmentally appropriate for adolescents, (ii) adding anxiety and depression assessment that have been validated for adolescents, and (iii) adding three constructs (stress, catastrophizing and sleep disorders) to assess psychosocial functioning in adolescents.

CONCLUSION: The recommended DC/TMD, including Axis I and Axis II for adolescents, is appropriate to use in clinical and research settings. This adapted first version for adolescents includes changes in Axis I and Axis II requiring reliability and validity testing in international settings. Official translations of the comprehensive and short-form to different languages according to INfORM requirements will enable a worldwide dissemination and implementation.

BACKGROUND: The Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) are used worldwide in adults. Until now, no adaptation for use in children has been proposed.

OBJECTIVE: To present comprehensive and short-form adaptations of Axis I and II of the DC/TMD for adults that are appropriate for use with children in clinical and research settings.

METHODS: Global Delphi studies with experts in TMDs and in pain psychology identified ways of adapting the DC/TMD for children.

RESULTS: The proposed adaptation is suitable for children aged 6-9 years. Proposed changes in Axis I include (i) adapting the language of the Demographics and the Symptom Questionnaires to be developmentally appropriate for children, (ii) adding a general health questionnaire for children and one for their parents, (iii) replacing the TMD Pain Screener with the 3Q/TMD questionnaire, and (iv) modifying the clinical examination protocol. Proposed changes in Axis II include (i) for the Graded Chronic Pain Scale, to be developmentally appropriate for children, and (ii) adding anxiety and depression assessments that have been validated in children, and (iii) adding three constructs (stress, catastrophizing, and sleep disorders) to assess psychosocial functioning in children.

CONCLUSION: The recommended DC/TMD, including Axis I and Axis II, for children aged 6-9 years, is appropriate for use in clinical and research settings. This adapted first version for children includes changes in Axis I and Axis II changes requiring reliability and validity testing in international settings. Official translations to different languages according to INfORM requirements will enable a worldwide dissemination and implementation.

INTRODUCTION: Oral appliance (OA) therapy in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) could be a risk factor for normal jaw function, given the prolonged effect of an OA in keeping the mandible in a protruded position away from a normal position. This study aimed to assess changes in symptoms and clinical findings related to jaw function after 1 year of treating OSA with an OA.

METHODS: In this follow-up clinical trial, 302 patients with OSA were assigned to treatment with either monobloc or bibloc OA. Baseline and 1-year follow-up assessment included using the Jaw Functional Limitation Scale, self-reported symptoms and signs related to jaw function. The clinical examination of jaw function included mandibular mobility, dental occlusion, and tenderness in the temporomandibular joints and masticatory muscles. Descriptive analyses of variables are presented for the per-protocol population. To evaluate differences between the baseline and the 1-year follow-up, paired Student t tests and the McNemar change test was used.

RESULTS: One-hundred and ninety-two patients completed the 1-year follow-up (male 73%, mean aged 55 ± 11 years). There was no change in the Jaw Functional Limitation Scale score at the follow-up (nonsignificant). The patients described no change in symptoms at the follow-up, except for improvements in morning headache (P <0.001) and increased frequency of difficulties in opening the mouth or chewing on awakening (P = 0.002). Subjectively reported changes in dental occlusion during biting/chewing increased significantly at the follow-up (P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS: No changes in measurements of jaw mobility, dental occlusion, or pain on palpation of the temporomandibular joints or masticatory muscles were seen at the follow-up. Thus, using an OA in treating OSA had limited influence on jaw functions and related symptoms. Moreover, the risk of developing pain and functional impairment in the masticatory system was infrequent, indicating that this treatment is safe and can be recommended.

BACKGROUND: Unlike the psychosocial assessment established for adults in the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD), a standardized psychosocial assessment for children and adolescents with TMD complaints has not yet been established.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a new standardized instrument set to assess the psychosocial functioning in children and adolescents by adapting the psychosocial status and pain-related disability (Axis II) of the adult DC/TMD and by including new instruments.

METHODS: A modified Delphi method was used to survey 23 international TMD experts and four international experts in pain-related psychological factors for consensus regarding assessment tools for psychosocial functioning and pain-related disability in children and adolescents. The TMD experts reviewed 29 Axis II statements at round 1, 13 at round 2, and 2 at round 3. Agreement was set at 80% for first-round consensus level and 70% for each of the second and third rounds. The psychological experts completed a complementary Delphi survey to reach a consensus on tools to use to assess more complex psychological domains in children and adolescents. For the psychological experts, the first round included 10 open-ended questions on preferred screening tools for depression, anxiety, catastrophizing, sleep problems, and stress in children (ages 6-9 years old) and adolescents (ages 10-19 years old) as well as on other domains suggested for investigation. In the second round, the psychological experts received a 9-item questionnaire to prioritize the suggested instruments from most to least recommended.

RESULTS: The TMD experts, after three Delphi rounds, reached consensus on the changes of DC/TMD to create a form to evaluate Axis II in children and adolescents with TMD complaints. The psychological experts added tools to assess depression and anxiety, sleep disorders, catastrophizing, stress, and resilience.

CONCLUSION: Through international expert consensus, this study adapted Axis II of the adult DC/TMD to assess psychosocial functioning and pain-related disability in children and adolescents. The adapted Axis II protocols will be validated in the target populations.

Aims: To assess differences in catastrophizing and kinesiophobia in relation to areas of pain and somatic symptoms among participants with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and controls. Methods: In total, 401 participants (333 women, 68 men, mean age: 45.8 years) in the TMJ Impact Project were examined in accordance with the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD, including clinical examination (Axis I) and psychosocial assessment (Axis II) augmented with imaging of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Of these, 218 participants had a painful TMD pain diagnosis, 63 had a nonpainful TMD diagnosis, and 111 had no TMD. Nine participants had missing data. Participants completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, Areas of Pain figure, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 for assessing somatic symptoms. Results: Compared to controls, participants with TMD pain showed higher levels of catastrophizing (P = .017), kinesiophobia (P < .001), areas of pain (P < .001), and somatic symptoms (P < .001). Participants with nonpainful TMD showed a higher level of kinesiophobia (P < .001) than controls. There was a positive correlation between catastrophizing and kinesiophobia for participants with TMD pain (r = 0.33, P < .001) and nonpainful TMD (r = 0.42, P < .001). Discussion: The results suggest more fear of movement, as well as an association between catastrophizing and fear of movement, in participants with TMD pain and in participants with nonpainful TMD compared to controls. Assessment and management of fear of movement as well as catastrophizing may be useful as part of individualized treatment strategies for patients with TMD.

Background: OHIP's original seven-domain structure does not fit empirical data, but a psychometrically sound and clinically more plausible structure with the four OHRQoL dimensions Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact has emerged. Consequently, use and scoring of available OHIP versions need to be revisited. Aim: We assessed how well the overall construct OHRQoL and its four dimensions were measured with several OHIP versions (20, 19, 14, and 5 items) to derive recommendations which instruments should be used and how to score them. Methods: Data came from the “Dimensions of OHRQoL Project” and used the project's learning sample (5,173 prosthodontic patients and general population subjects with 49-item OHIP data). We computed correlations among OHIP versions’ summary scores. Correlations between OHRQoL dimensions, on one hand, and OHIP versions’ domain scores or OHIP-5′s items, on the other hand, were also computed. OHIP use and scoring recommendations were derived for psychometrically solid but also practical OHRQoL assessment. Results: Summary scores of 5-, 14-, 19- and 49-item versions correlated highly (r = 0.91–0.98), suggesting similar OHRQoL construct measurement across versions. The OHRQoL dimensions Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact were best measured by the OHIP domain scores for Physical Disability, Physical Pain, Psychological Discomfort, and Handicap, respectively. Conclusion: Recommendations were derived which OHIP should be preferably used and how OHIP versions should be scored to capture the overall construct and the dimensions of OHRQoL. Psychometrically solid and practical OHRQoL assessment in all settings across all oral health conditions can be achieved with the 5-item OHIP. 

As pain cannot be measured objectively, the use of patient reported outcomes (PROs), and specifically dental PROs (dPROs), is essential for adequate assessment and management of the patient with orofacial pain. For orofacial pain conditions, some of the suitable PROs are specific to dentistry and hence can be labelled dPROs, whereas others are not. There is also a need to understand which outcomes and domains are most relevant to the patient with pain complaints within the context of the biopsychosocial model. Acute pain in the orofacial area is most often related to toothache, whereas the most common chronic orofacial pain are temporomandibular disorders. Other chronic pains in the orofacial area include neuropathic pain and unknown or idiopathic pain. PROs have been fundamental in the development of both screening procedures and diagnostic criteria in temporomandibular disorders. PROs are now often a prerequisite for the most common temporomandibular disorder pain diagnoses. Furthermore, PROs form the basis for decision-making with regard to treatment, prognostics, and referrals. Future areas of development include the standardized use of PROs in the screening and diagnostics of the less common orofacial pain conditions, together with development of core outcomes sets and standardized protocols for the use of PROs in evaluation of treatment including efficacy, compliance, adherence, and side-effects.