While muscle overload is commonly implicated in musculoskeletal pain conditions, real-time assessment of associated behavioural and physiological features is challenging. This study aims to investigate the relationship between self-reported awake bruxism using Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) and jaw muscle activity registered by surface electromyography (sEMG), and differences between individuals with and without temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain. Seventy participants (38 women, 32 men), of which 31% reported pain, completed 3-day EMA using a smartphone application combined with a sEMG device only for day 1. Overload, defined as muscle activity exceeding 20% of maximum voluntary contraction (MVC), was evaluated for duration and area under curve (AUC). A strong correlation was observed between EMA-reported bruxism and sEMG overload duration (ρ = 0.62, p < 0.001). AUC showed a correlation with EMA only in the TMD group. Participants with TMD pain exhibited shorter high-intensity bursts (60-79% MVC, p ≤ 0.005) but prolonged low-intensity muscle activity (20-39% MVC, p < 0.001). Bruxism behaviour and stress levels were higher in women and in individuals with pain. The results suggest that combining EMA and sEMG provides valid assessment of musculoskeletal overload, capturing both perceptual and physiological dimensions. Incorporating EMA in pain management can identify pain-related risk behaviours, thus supporting tailored patient-centred interventions.

BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain in adolescents is common, has a negative impact on quality of life, and is a predictor of pain in young adulthood. A common and symptomatic treatment is occlusal appliance therapy (OAT). Internet-based behavioural therapy (IBT) is a novel, multimodal, and patient-centred self-management therapy for adolescents with TMD pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the adherence and effect of IBT compared to OAT in adolescents with TMD pain.

METHODS: Participants were recruited from public dental care and specialist clinics in orofacial pain in Sweden between January 2016 and March 2020. Screening of adolescents, 13-19 years, was performed using three questions for TMD (3Q/TMD). Eligible subjects were examined according to the DC/TMD and randomly allocated to IBT or OAT. The IBT group performed the 7-week programme online with individualised feedback through phone after each section. The OAT group used a stabilisation splint night time for 3 months. A 3-month questionnaire follow-up on pain intensity, pain disability, and psychosocial outcomes was conducted.

RESULTS: In total, 52 patients were randomised to IBT and 48 to OAT. There was a low adherence to IBT with a 75% drop-out. Positive expectations of treatment were significantly (p = 0.001) greater in the OAT group. OAT was related to better outcomes for characteristic pain intensity (p = 0.047) and pain-related disability (p = 0.049) when compared to IBT. No significant difference within or between the groups regarding the psychosocial outcomes was observed.

CONCLUSIONS: The current version of IBT was overly comprehensive for adolescents with TMD pain and needs to be revised.

Background/AimPersistent idiopathic facial pain (PIFP) is a rare condition with a lifetime prevalence of approximately 0.03%. It is characterized by persistent daily facial pain without identifiable cause and presents diagnostic and therapeutic challenges due to unknown pathophysiology, symptom overlap with other painful disorders, and limited evidence-based treatments. The aim of this Delphi study was to establish international consensus-derived guidelines for the management of patients with PIFP.MethodsA three-round Delphi study was conducted with 16 international pain experts, each with ≥10 years of clinical experience in pain management and extensive peer-reviewed publications. The first round involved open-ended questions, and the qualitative data were analyzed using systematic text condensation, resulting in a quantitative questionnaire with 42 statements. Subsequent rounds employed Likert-scale responses to these statements. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement or disagreement. In addition, if 11-12 (68-75 percent) out of the 16 experts agreed or disagreed, consensus was not reached, but a majority was considered to have a particular opinion.ResultsConsensus was reached in 35 out of the 42 statements (83%), emphasizing multidisciplinary collaboration and avoidance of invasive procedures in the treatment of PIFP. In an additional three statements (7%) a majority of the experts agreed with each other. In four statements (10%), no consensus or majority was reached. Pharmacological treatments, including tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and gabapentinoids, may be considered; however, opioids should generally be avoided in the treatment of PIFP. Patient education and behavioral therapies are important interventions, and the most important measure of therapeutic success is improved quality of lifeConclusionThe present Delphi study has established internationally derived consensus guidelines and recommendations for the evaluation and comprehensive management of patients with PIFP. This is a first step in gathering knowledge for future evidence-based guidelines and more specific treatment recommendations. These international expert consensus guidelines recommend a multi- or interdisciplinary approach in managing PIFP, avoiding invasive interventions and prioritizing patient-centered outcomes.

Background: The multifactorial nature of chronic pain should be reflected in pain assessment. The aim of this observational study comparing samples from three generations assessed at different times was to present differences in pain, stress and mental well‐being.

Methods: Pain sites, widespread pain, stress (Perceived Stress Scale‐4) and mental well‐being (30‐item General Health Questionnaire) were described across generations from the Malmö neck and shoulder study (parents, Generation 1, n  = 12,607), Malmö offspring study, and Malmö Offspring pain study (children and grandchildren, Generation 2, n  = 1572; Generation 3, n  = 936).

Results: Pain prevalence remained comparable across generations. In all generations, women reported more pain sites compared to men, mean difference 1.0 (95% CI 0.9–1.1) in Generation 1, mean difference 1.3 (95% CI 1.0–1.6) in Generation 2, and mean difference 0.9 (95% CI 0.5–1.3) in Generation 3. The frequency of widespread pain for women and men was 28% and 16% in Generation 1, 27% and 12% in Generation 2, and 22% and 15% in Generation 3, respectively. Perceived stress levels were consistently higher in Generation 2 and 3 compared to Generation 1 for both women and men. Among women, mental well‐being remained stable between Generation 1 and 2 but declined significantly in Generation 3 (mean difference 3.2, 95% CI 2.4–4.3).

Conclusions: The results suggest significant gender disparities, with women consistently reporting more pain sites, higher stress levels, and reduced mental well‐being compared to men. Furthermore, the findings suggest that generational differences in coping—or other factors—may mitigate the impact of psychosocial distress on pain prevalence, warranting further research.

Significance: This study highlights the comparability of pain prevalence across generations despite increasing stress and declining mental well‐being, particularly in women. These findings emphasise the importance of integrating mental health support and gender‐specific coping strategies into pain management, offering insights into biopsychosocial mechanisms underlying the interactions between pain and perceived stress.

Objectives: This study aimed to identify baseline factors that predict Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in patients with TMD 8 years later.

Materials and Methods: 401 participants (333 women, mean age 45.8 years) from a multicenter cohort were examined using the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) and questionnaires. The main outcome was the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), a HRQoL measure that provides physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) summaries. Baseline predictors included age, gender, self-reported health, Jaw Functional Limitation Scale (JFLS), pain intensity, pain frequency, and pain duration. Regression analysis with stepwise modeling identified predictive factors.

Results: 54.3% had painful TMD, 15.7% had nonpainful TMD, and 27.7% were healthy controls. For the painful TMD group, the regression model was significant (R² = .25, F = 4.3, P < .01), with age and favorable general health predicting PCS scores. In the nonpainful TMD group, the model was significant (R² = .58, F = 3.8, P < .01), with JFLS and favorable general health (predicting PCS scores. The MCS model was significant in healthy controls (R2 = .22, F = 1.8, P = .05), with JFLS as only predictor.

Conclusion: Predictors of mental HRQoL: JFLS in healthy controls, but no predictors were found in TMD groups. Predictors of physical HRQoL: General health in both TMD groups, JFLS in the nonpainful TMD group, and age in the painful TMD group.

Background and Objectives: Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) is an umbrella term for pain and dysfunction involving jaw muscles and/or the temporomandibular joint, with whiplash trauma suggested to be one risk factor. The aim was to evaluate prevalence and relative risk of TMDs in the acute and chronic stages after whiplash trauma. Databases and Data Treatment: This review was registered in Prospero (CRD42023407091) and followed the PRISMA guidelines. A literature search in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science on 10 March 2023 and updated 29 April 2024 identified studies reporting prevalence of TMD after whiplash trauma. Risk of bias was assessed with Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool. A random effect meta-analysis was performed for prevalence of TMD pain. Results: After screening of 671 identified studies, 96 articles were assessed in full text. Fourteen studies, with 840 cases in the acute and 8293 cases in the chronic stage (i.e., > 3 months post-trauma) were included in a qualitative analysis together with 1591 controls. Nine studies, including 449 cases in the acute and 7912 individuals in the chronic stage after trauma, together with 515 controls, were included in the meta-analysis. Mean prevalence for TMD pain was 18.9% (95% CI 9.71–29.98) in the acute case group, 26.8% (95% CI 15.07–38.79) in the chronic case group, and 5.7% (95% CI 3.08–8.96) in the control group. Conclusions: The higher prevalence of TMD pain already in the early stage after whiplash trauma, emphasises the need for early comprehensive clinical assessment as well as targeted research to understand underlying mechanisms. Significance: The prevalence of Temporomandibular disorder pain was high already in the acute stage after whiplash trauma, and there was no evidence of any decrease from the acute to the chronic stage. This finding suggests that early assessment and management rather than a 'wait-and see' approach should be recommended when patients present with orofacial pain related to whiplash trauma.

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.