Quantitative methods for somatosensory evaluation in atypical odontalgia
A systematic review was conducted to identify reliable somatosensory evaluation methods for atypical odontalgia (AO) patients. The computerized search included the main databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). The studies included used the following quantitative sensory testing (QST) methods: mechanical detection threshold (MDT), mechanical pain threshold (MPT) (pinprick), pressure pain threshold (PPT), dynamic mechanical allodynia with a cotton swab (DMA1) or a brush (DMA2), warm detection threshold (WDT), cold detection threshold (CDT), heat pain threshold (HPT), cold pain detection (CPT), and/or wind-up ratio (WUR). The publications meeting the inclusion criteria revealed that only mechanical allodynia tests (DMA1, DMA2, and WUR) were significantly higher and pain threshold tests to heat stimulation (HPT) were significantly lower in the affected side, compared with the contralateral side, in AO patients; however, for MDT, MPT, PPT, CDT, and WDT, the results were not significant. These data support the presence of central sensitization features, such as allodynia and temporal summation. In contrast, considerable inconsistencies between studies were found when AO patients were compared with healthy subjects. In clinical settings, the most reliable evaluation method for AO in patients with persistent idiopathic facial pain would be intraindividual assessments using HPT or mechanical allodynia tests.
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Digital revista |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica - SBPqO
2015
|
| Online Access: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242015000100400 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | A systematic review was conducted to identify reliable somatosensory evaluation methods for atypical odontalgia (AO) patients. The computerized search included the main databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). The studies included used the following quantitative sensory testing (QST) methods: mechanical detection threshold (MDT), mechanical pain threshold (MPT) (pinprick), pressure pain threshold (PPT), dynamic mechanical allodynia with a cotton swab (DMA1) or a brush (DMA2), warm detection threshold (WDT), cold detection threshold (CDT), heat pain threshold (HPT), cold pain detection (CPT), and/or wind-up ratio (WUR). The publications meeting the inclusion criteria revealed that only mechanical allodynia tests (DMA1, DMA2, and WUR) were significantly higher and pain threshold tests to heat stimulation (HPT) were significantly lower in the affected side, compared with the contralateral side, in AO patients; however, for MDT, MPT, PPT, CDT, and WDT, the results were not significant. These data support the presence of central sensitization features, such as allodynia and temporal summation. In contrast, considerable inconsistencies between studies were found when AO patients were compared with healthy subjects. In clinical settings, the most reliable evaluation method for AO in patients with persistent idiopathic facial pain would be intraindividual assessments using HPT or mechanical allodynia tests. |
|---|