Iatrogenic damage to the mandibular nerves as assessed by the masseter inhibitory reflex

Iatrogenic injury of the inferior alveolar or lingual nerves frequently leads to legal actions for damage and compensation for personal suffering. The masseter inhibitory reflex (MIR) is the most used neurophysiological tool for the functional assessment of the trigeminal mandibular division. Aiming at measuring the MIR sensitivity and specificity, we recorded this reflex after mental and tongue stimulations in a controlled, blinded study in 160 consecutive patients with sensory disturbances following dental procedures. The MIR latency was longer on the affected than the contralateral side (P < 0.0001). The overall specificity and sensitivity were 99 and 51%. Our findings indicate that MIR testing, showing an almost absolute specificity, reliably demonstrates nerve damage beyond doubt, whereas the relatively low sensitivity makes the finding of a normal MIR by no means sufficient to exclude nerve damage. Probably, the dysfunction of a small number of nerve fibres, insufficient to produce a MIR abnormality, may still engender important sensory disturbances. We propose that MIR testing, when used for legal purposes, be considered reliable in one direction only, i.e. abnormality does prove nerve damage, normality does not disprove it

Importance of the Graded Chronic Pain Scale as a biopsychosocial screening instrument in TMD pain patient subtyping

Abstract Aims: To compare the suitability of Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) pain intensity and interference assessments (GCPS version 1.0 vs 2.0) for the biopsychosocial screening and subtyping of Finnish tertiary care referral patients with TMD pain. Methods: Altogether, 197 TMD pain patients participated in this study. All patients received Axis II specialist-level psychosocial questionnaires from the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD-FIN) and Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD-FIN), as well as questionnaires for the assessment of additional pain-related, biopsychosocial, and treatment-related variables. Clinical examinations were performed according to the DC/TMD Axis I protocol. The patients were categorized into TMD subtypes 1, 2, and 3 (GCPS I and II-low; II-high; and III and IV, respectively) based on their biopsychosocial profiles according to GCPS versions 1.0 and 2.0. Results: The distribution of TMD pain patients into TMD subtypes was similar according to the GCPS 1.0 compared to the GCPS 2.0. Over 50% of the patients were moderately (TMD subtype 2) or severely (TMD subtype 3) compromised. Patients in subtype 3 experienced biopsychosocial symptoms and reported previous health care visits significantly more often than patients in subtypes 1 and 2. Patients in subtype 2 reported intermediate biopsychosocial burden compared to subtypes 1 and 3. Conclusions: TMD pain patients differ in their biopsychosocial profiles, and, similarly to the GCPS 1.0, the GCPS 2.0 is a suitable instrument for categorizing TMD tertiary care pain patients into three biopsychosocially relevant TMD subtypes. The GCPS 2.0 can be regarded as a suitable initial screening tool for adjunct personalized or comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment

Diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) : interexaminer reliability of the Finnish version of Axis I clinical diagnoses

Recently, updated diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) were published to assess TMD in a standardised way in clinical and research settings. The DC/TMD protocol has been translated into Finnish using specific cultural equivalency procedures. To assess the interexaminer reliability using the Finnish translations of the DC/TMD-FIN Axis I clinical diagnostic assessment instruments. Reliability assessment data were collected during a 1-day DC/TMD Examiner Training Course at the University of Turku, Finland, in collaboration with the International DC/TMD Training and Calibration Center in Malmo University. Clinical TMD examinations according to the Finnish pre-final version of the DC/TMD Axis I assessment protocol were performed by four experienced TMD specialists on altogether 16 models. Kappa coefficient, overall percentage agreement (%A) as well as positive (PA) and negative (NA) agreements were used to define the reliability. Myofascial pain with referral, headache attributed to TMD and disc displacement (DD) without reduction without limited opening showed excellent kappa values (range 087-100). Fair-to-good reliability was observed for diagnoses of myalgia (k = 067), arthralgia (k = 071) and DD with reduction (k = 064). The PA was high for all pain-related diagnoses and DD without reduction without limited opening (medians 83%), and acceptable for DD with reduction (median 67%). The NA was high (medians 87%) for all DC/TMD diagnoses, except for myalgia which showed acceptable NA (median 75%). The %A was high for all assessed diagnoses (medians >85%). The findings of this study showed DC/TMD-FIN Axis I to demonstrate sufficiently high reliability for pain-related TMD diagnoses

Comparison of Axis II psychosocial assessment methods of RDC/TMD and DC/TMD as part of DC/TMD-FIN phase II validation studies in tertiary care Finnish TMD pain patients

Abstract Background: The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) and Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) include Axis II instruments for psychosocial assessment. Objectives: The aims were to compare the Finnish versions of Axis II psychosocial assessment methods of the RDC/TMD and DC/TMD and to study their internal reliability. Methods: The sample comprised 197 tertiary care referral TMD pain patients. The associations between RDC/TMD [Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) 1.0, Symptom Check List 90-revised (SCL-90R)] and DC/TMD (GCPS 2.0, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), PHQ-15) assessment instruments were evaluated using Spearman correlation coefficients, Wilcoxon Signed Rank s, chi-squared test and gamma statistics. The internal reliability and internal inter-item consistency of SCL-90-R, PHQ-9, PHQ-15 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) were evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values. Results: The DC/TMD and RDC/TMD Axis II psychosocial instruments correlated strongly (p &lt; .001). GCPS 1.0 and GCPS 2.0 grades were similarly distributed based on both criteria. The RDC/TMD psychological instruments had a higher tendency to subclassify patients with more severe symptoms of depression and non-specific physical symptoms compared to DC/TMD. The internal reliability and internal inter-item consistency were high for the psychological assessment instruments. Conclusions: The Finnish versions of the RDC/TMD and DC/TMD Axis II psychosocial instruments correlated strongly among tertiary care TMD pain patients. Furthermore, the Axis II psychological assessment instruments indicated high validity and internal inter-item consistency and are applicable in Finnish TMD pain patients as part of other comprehensive specialist level assessments, but further psychometric and cut-off evaluations are still needed