School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Department of Removable Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
J Oral Rehabil. 2021 Jul;48(7):785-797. doi: 10.1111/joor.13173. Epub 2021 Apr 12.
(i) To evaluate the effect of three different interventions on treatment outcomes and (ii) to determine how the frequency of oral parafunction influences the effectiveness of the different therapeutic modalities.
Forty-five participants were randomly assigned into three treatment groups [physical therapy (PT), stabilisation splint (SS) and control therapy (CT)]. According to Oral Behavior Checklist score, participants were divided into "high-frequency parafunction" (HFP) and low-frequency parafunction" (LFP) group. Primary (spontaneous pain and characteristic pain intensity) and secondary outcomes (range of mouth opening, anxiety symptoms, quality of life, perceived stress and global functional limitation) were evaluated during six-month treatment period.
Participants in PT group showed a significant reduction in characteristic pain intensity (p = .047, η = 0.243) when compared to SS and CT group, but significant improvement in spontaneous pain was found in all treatment groups. Patients treated with PT and SS exhibited significantly stronger improvement in pain-free mouth opening than patients in CT group (3rd month: p=.037, η2=0.258; 6th month: p = .005, η = 0.383). Within-group analyses showed significant decrease of perceived stress, anxiety symptoms and global functional limitation only in PT group over a six-month treatment period. Participants with HFP presented significantly greater levels of anxiety (3rd month: p = .009, η = 0.275; 6th month: p = .041, η = 0.176) than participants with LFP. Within-group analyses, however, showed significant improvement of anxiety, but also the decrease of perceived stress and improvement of global limitation for the HFP group but not for the LFP group.
Although no treatment can be marked as superior in terms of spontaneous pain relief, PT was more effective when observing relief of characteristic pain intensity. In HFP group the reduction of anxiety, stress and functional limitation was present regardless of the applied therapy.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04694274. Registered on 01/04/2021.
(i) 评估三种不同干预措施对治疗结果的影响,(ii) 确定口腔功能紊乱的频率如何影响不同治疗方式的效果。
45 名参与者被随机分配到三个治疗组[物理治疗 (PT)、稳定夹板 (SS) 和对照治疗 (CT)]。根据口腔行为检查表评分,参与者被分为“高频率口腔功能紊乱 (HFP)”和“低频率口腔功能紊乱 (LFP)”组。在 6 个月的治疗期间评估主要(自发性疼痛和特征性疼痛强度)和次要结果(张口范围、焦虑症状、生活质量、感知压力和整体功能限制)。
与 SS 和 CT 组相比,PT 组的特征性疼痛强度显著降低(p=0.047,η=0.243),但所有治疗组的自发性疼痛均有显著改善。接受 PT 和 SS 治疗的患者在无疼痛张口方面的改善明显强于 CT 组(第 3 个月:p=0.037,η²=0.258;第 6 个月:p=0.005,η=0.383)。组内分析显示,仅在 PT 组在 6 个月的治疗期间,感知压力、焦虑症状和整体功能限制显著下降。HFP 组的焦虑水平显著高于 LFP 组(第 3 个月:p=0.009,η=0.275;第 6 个月:p=0.041,η=0.176)。然而,组内分析显示,HFP 组的焦虑显著改善,而感知压力降低,整体限制改善,但 LFP 组则没有。
尽管没有一种治疗方法可以被标记为在缓解自发性疼痛方面更优,但在观察到特征性疼痛强度缓解时,PT 更为有效。在 HFP 组中,无论应用何种治疗,焦虑、压力和功能限制的减轻都存在。
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04694274。于 2021 年 1 月 4 日注册。