10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Prevalence of pain in the orofacial regions in patients visiting general dentists in the Northwest Practice-based REsearch Collaborative in Evidence-based DENTistry research network

      , , , , ,
      The Journal of the American Dental Association
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study aimed to measure prevalence of pain in the orofacial regions and determine association with demographics, treatment history, and oral health conditions in dental patients visiting clinics in the Northwest Practice-based REsearch Collaborative in Evidence-based DENTistry (PRECEDENT) research network. Data were recorded in a survey with systematic random sampling of patients (n = 1,668, 18 to 93 years old, 56% female) visiting 100 general dentists in the Northwest PRECEDENT research network. Prevalence ratios (PR) of orofacial pain by each variable were estimated by generalized estimating equations for Poisson regression. The prevalence of orofacial pain during the past year was 16.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.4–18.9), of which the most prevalent pain locations were dentoalveolar (9.1%; 95% CI, 7.0–11.2) and musculoligamentous tissues (6.6%; 95% CI, 4.5–8.7). Other locations included soft tissues (0.5%; 95% CI, 0.2–0.8) and nonspecific areas (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.2–1.0). The prevalence of dentoalveolar but not musculoligamentous pain decreased with age. When comparing the 18- to 29-year-old patients, dentoalveolar pain decreased significantly in 45- to 64-year-old patients (PR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.4–0.9) and in those 65 years or older (PR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3–0.9). Sex significantly affected the prevalence of musculoligamentous but not dentoalveolar pain. Women (PR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.0–5.1) were more likely to have musculoligamentous pain. The prevalence of dentoalveolar and musculoligamentous pain did not vary significantly by ethnicity. Dentoalveolar pain was reported more frequently in patients who did not receive dental maintenance (PR, 2.9; 95% CI, 2.1–4.2) and those visiting community-based public health clinics (PR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2–3.7). One in 6 patients visiting a general dentist had experienced orofacial pain during the past year. Dentoalveolar and musculoligamentous pains were the most prevalent types of pain. Pain in the muscles and temporomandibular joints was reported as frequently as that in the teeth and surrounding tissues in patients visiting general dentists. Although the dental curriculum is concentrated on the diagnosis and management of pain and related conditions from teeth and surrounding tissues, it is imperative to include the training for other types of orofacial pain, particularly those from temporomandibular joint and musculoligamentous tissues.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Incidence of facial pain in the general population.

          Facial pain has a considerable impact on quality of life. Accurate incidence estimates in the general population are scant. The aim was therefore to estimate the incidence rate (IR) of trigeminal neuralgia (TGN), postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), cluster headache (CH), occipital neuralgia (ON), local neuralgia (LoN), atypical facial pain (AFP), glossopharyngeal neuralgia (GPN) and paroxysmal hemicrania (PH) in the Netherlands. In the population-based Integrated Primary Care Information (IPCI) medical record database potential facial pain cases were identified from codes and narratives. Two medical doctors reviewed medical records, questionnaires from general practitioners and specialist letters using criteria of the International Association for the Study of Pain. A pain specialist arbitrated if necessary and a random sample of all cases was evaluated by a neurologist. The date of onset was defined as date of first specific symptoms. The IR was calculated per 100,000PY. Three hundred and sixty-two incident cases were ascertained. The overall IR [95% confidence interval] was 38.7 [34.9-42.9]. It was more common among women compared to men. Trigeminal neuralgia and cluster headache were the most common forms among the studied diseases. Paroxysmal hemicrania and glossopharyngeal neuralgia were among the rarer syndromes. The IR increased with age for all diseases except CH and ON, peaking in the 4th and 7th decade, respectively. Postherpetic neuralgia, CH and LoN were more common in men than women. From this we can conclude that facial pain is relatively rare, although more common than estimated previously based on hospital data.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Relationship between bruxism and temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review of literature from 1998 to 2008.

            The present paper aims to systematically review the literature on the temporomandibular disorders (TMD)-bruxism relationship published from 1998 to 2008. A systematic search in the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database was performed to identify all studies on humans assessing the relationship between TMD symptoms and bruxism diagnosed with any different approach. The selected articles were assessed independently by the 2 authors according to a structured reading of articles format (PICO). A total of 46 articles were included for discussion in the review and grouped into questionnaire/self-report (n = 21), clinical assessment (n = 7), experimental (n = 7), tooth wear (n = 5), polysomnographic (n = 4), or electromyographic (n = 2) studies. In several studies, the level of evidence was negatively influenced by a low level of specificity for the assessment of the bruxism-TMD relationship, because of the low prevalence of severe TMD patients in the studied samples and because of the use of self-report diagnosis of bruxism with some potential diagnostic bias. Investigations based on self-report or clinical bruxism diagnosis showed a positive association with TMD pain, but they are characterized by some potential bias and confounders at the diagnostic level (eg, pain as a criterion for bruxism diagnosis). Studies based on more quantitative and specific methods to diagnose bruxism showed much lower association with TMD symptoms. Anterior tooth wear was not found to be a major risk factor for TMD. Experimental sustained jaw clenching may provoke acute muscle tenderness, but it is not analogous to myogenous TMD pain, so such studies may not help clarify the clinical relationship between bruxism and TMD. Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A simple method for the analysis of clustered binary data.

              A simple method for comparing independent groups of clustered binary data with group-specific covariates is proposed. It is based on the concepts of design effect and effective sample size widely used in sample surveys, and assumes no specific models for the intracluster correlations. It can be implemented using any standard computer program for the analysis of independent binary data after a small amount of preprocessing. The method is applied to a variety of problems involving clustered binary data: testing homogeneity of proportions, estimating dose-response models and testing for trend in proportions, and performing the Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test for independence in a series of 2 x 2 tables and estimating the common odds ratio and its variance. Illustrative applications of the method are also presented.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                The Journal of the American Dental Association
                The Journal of the American Dental Association
                Elsevier BV
                00028177
                October 2015
                October 2015
                : 146
                : 10
                : 721-728.e3
                Article
                10.1016/j.adaj.2015.04.001
                7289192
                26409981
                0c7d47e9-30b5-4b49-a37e-71216aa52705
                © 2015
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article