Dionne R A
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2000 Oct;21(10):822-4, 826, 828.
The management of chronic orofacial pain has a history of therapeutic misadventures, charismatic-based treatment philosophies, controversies over the correct nomenclature, and a lack of scientific documentation. The dental profession has struggled to develop a systematic approach to nomenclature, treatment, and clinical research through numerous conferences, workshops, and consensus attempts. Despite these efforts, there is no generally accepted agreement on the etiology of chronic orofacial pain, its natural history, the role of occlusion, the need for aggressive treatment, or the effectiveness, safety, and indications for most current practices. These professional differences are often fostered by a lack of appreciation for the difference between clinical observations, which may form the basis for therapeutic innovation, and the need to verify the safety and efficacy of treatments in studies that control for factors that can mimic clinical success. This article describes the use of antidepressants as an example for the treatment of chronic orofacial pain. The treatment arose from the clinical observations of astute clinicians, but was subjected to scientific validation in well-controlled clinical trials.
慢性口面部疼痛的管理有着治疗失败、基于个人魅力的治疗理念、关于正确命名法的争议以及缺乏科学文献记载的历史。牙科行业通过众多会议、研讨会和达成共识的尝试,努力制定一种系统的命名法、治疗方法和临床研究方法。尽管做出了这些努力,但对于慢性口面部疼痛的病因、其自然病程、咬合的作用、积极治疗的必要性,以及大多数现行治疗方法的有效性、安全性和适应证,仍未达成普遍接受的共识。这些专业差异往往是由于对临床观察(可能构成治疗创新的基础)与在控制可模拟临床成功因素的研究中验证治疗的安全性和有效性的必要性之间的差异缺乏认识而造成的。本文以抗抑郁药治疗慢性口面部疼痛为例进行描述。这种治疗方法源于敏锐临床医生的临床观察,但在严格控制的临床试验中经过了科学验证。