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.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVES: The 1-month Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) commonly used in clinical studies has never been validated. This study compares the GCPS 1-month with the 6-months version for reliability and validity.

METHODS: The Validation Project included 521 subjects with at least one temporomandibular disorder for cross-sectional data and 74 subjects for test-retest data. Internal reliability, stability, and construct validity were used for testing the 1-month version. Comparisons were made between the two versions for characteristic pain intensity (CPI), interference, and chronic pain grade (CPG).

RESULTS: For GCPS 1-month, internal consistency for pain intensity and interference was high (Cronbach's alpha=0.87 and 0.94, respectively), and temporal stability was high for CPI (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.91), interference (ICC=0.85), and CPG (weighted kappa=0.88). ICC or kappa between the two versions was 0.78 (CPI), 0.66 (interference), and 0.69 (CPG); high-impact pain, in contrast, was 0.50. Construct validity exhibited higher correlations with predictor variables for 1-month version attributes of CPI, interference, and CPG. Modified Bland-Altman plots indicated that both versions measure CPI well.

DISCUSSION: Overall, reliability of the 1-month GCPS is equal to or better than the 6-months version for pain intensity, disability days, pain interference, CPG, and high-impact pain. However, consistency between versions is lower for measures of disability days and interference, and for the derived measures of CPG and high-impact pain; highly skewed distributions and increasing disagreement in reported status over the time periods affect the measures of function. Therefore, we recommend that GCPS-1 month only be used to calculate pain intensity and pain interference.

Behavior—what a person does to attain a goal—relevant to temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) can be classified into three types: organ system-level functional behaviors, organ system-level non-functional behaviors, and person-level behaviors. Despite decades of productive research regarding the importance of behavior, taken broadly, as encompassing multiple risk factors for another prevalent musculoskeletal pain disorder (low back pain), behavioral research related to TMDs remains in the early stages. Clinically, behavioral factors are complex with regard to adequate assessment, and they require specific conceptual and management skills. Consequently, providing due diligence to their importance is challenging in many medical arenas. The sparse data that exist supporting the role of behavior in TMD onset and persistence indicate that excessive extent of masticatory system non-functional and possibly functional behaviors contributes to painful TMD onset and appear to contribute to chronicity. In addition, TMD-relevant behaviors can be amplified by chronic pain, among other stressors, suggesting a complex reciprocal relationship. Both the reciprocal relationship between TMD pain and functional and non-functional behaviors and the person-level behaviors create multiple interactive feedback loops which then serve as barriers to behavioral change. These barriers need to be addressed in a step-like manner with treatment, such that motor control and sensory perception undergo re-learning. At present, the evidence regarding treatments or their efficacy is minimal and mostly indirect. The field needs to develop better theories regarding how behavior fits within the available evidence pertaining to TMD etiology and persistence. With better theories and transfer of knowledge from other pain fields, better treatment research can be implemented for TMDs.

AIM: To develop new instruments and to adapt the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) for the evaluation of TMD in children and adolescents.

METHOD: A modified Delphi method was used to seek international consensus among TMD experts. Fourteen clinicians and researchers in the field of orofacial pain and TMD worldwide were invited to participate in a workshop initiated by the International Network for Orofacial Pain and Related Disorders Methodology (INfORM scientific network) at the General Session of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR, London 2018), as the first step in the Delphi process. Participants discussed the protocols required to make physical diagnoses included in the Axis I of the DC/TMD. Thereafter, nine experts in the field were added, and the first Delphi round was created. This survey included 60 statements for Axis I, and the experts were asked to respond to each statement on a five-item Likert scale ranging from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree". Consensus level was set at 80% agreement for the first round, and at 70% for the next.

RESULTS: After three rounds of the Delphi process, a consensus among TMD experts was achieved and two adapted DC/TMD protocols for Axis I physical diagnoses for children and adolescents were developed.

CONCLUSION: Through international consensus among TMD experts, this study adapted the Axis I of the DC/TMD for use in evaluating TMD in children and adolescents.

Dentists stand in an optimal position to prevent and manage patients suffering from chronic orofacial pain (OFP) disorders, such as temporomandibular disorders, burning mouth syndrome, trigeminal neuralgia, persistent idiopathic dentoalveolar pain, among others. However, there are consistent reports highlighting a lack of knowledge and confidence in diagnosing and treating OFP among dental students, recent graduates, and trained dentists, which leads to misdiagnosis, unnecessary costs, delay in appropriate care and possible harm to patients. Education in OFP is necessary to improve the quality of general dental care and reduce individual and societal burden of chronic pain through prevention and improved quality of life for OFP patients. Our aims are to emphasize the goals of OFP education, to identify barriers for its implementation, and to suggest possible avenues to improve OFP education in general, postgraduate, and continuing dental education levels, including proposed minimum OFP competencies for all dentists. Moreover, patient perspectives are also incorporated, including a testimony from a person with OFP. General dentists, OFP experts, educators, researchers, patients, and policy makers need to combine efforts in order to successfully address the urgent need for quality OFP education.