The study aims to demonstrate the efficacy of the sensorimotor approach developed by A. Piron (taught to the patient in three sessions) regarding three parameters related to TMD: facial pain, functional incapacities and hypertonia. The subjects in the study are 18 to 77 years old and present the following conditions: a TMD disorder caused or aggravated by hypertonia and responsible for cervico-maxillo-facial pain and/or a functional incapacity in the last 30 days.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
NA
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
110
Cabinet de Logopédie Liesens-Denis
Berneau, Liège, Belgium
Cabinet d'Ostéopathie PIRON
Beyne-Heusay, Liège, Belgium
Cabinet de groupe LHR
Saive, Liège, Belgium
Cabinet d'Ostéopathie Garcion
Nantes, Loire-Atlantique, France
Overall relief (from 0% to 100%) based on the ratio of "complaint after treatment" to "complaint before treatment". Multiple measurements related to both pain and functional incapacity are aggregated to arrive at one reported value: complaint
Patient's complaint is calculated: * By integrating the weighting of both pain (P) and functional incapacity (FI) parameters in the complaint. 11 possibilities: \[100% P - 0% FI\] OR \[90% P - 10% FI\] OR \[80% P - 20% FI\] etc. * Patient's complaint = Pain and/or functional incapacity * Assessement of pain integrates 2 or 3 or 4 parameters: 2 are constant (intensity and frequency), 2 are optional (quality of life and drugs) because some painful patient don't take drug or don't have an altered quality of life. If there are 2 parameters, each = 50%; if 3 parameters, each = 33,3%; if 4 parameters, each = 25% * The scoring of the 4 pain parameters is based on questionnaires: Intensity: GCPS v2.0 (part 1): Score 0 to 100; Frequency (last month): Score 0 to 30; Drug: number of gram of the most specific medication (last month); Quality of life: GCPS v2.0 (part 2): score 0 to 6 * Assessement of functional incapacity integrates 1 parameter: the JFLS-20 questionnaire (score from 0 to 200)
Time frame: Beginning (day 0); during treatment (day 30 and day 90); end (day 180)
Evidence of a change from baseline in the "intensity" component of cervico-maxillo-facial pain (a component of the primary outcome measure), on the basis of a questionnaire called "the Graded Chronic Pain Scale Version 2 (GCPS v2.0) (part 1)".
3 Visual Analogic Scales (VAS) \> 0 to 10. The scoring = the mean (0 to 100).
Time frame: Beginning (day 0); during treatment (day 30 and day 90); end (day 180)
Evidence of a change from baseline in the "impact on quality of life" component of facial pain (a component of the primary outcome measure), on the basis of questionnaire called "the Graded Chronic Pain Scale Version 2 (GCPS v2.0) (part 2)".
3 Visual Analogic Scales (VAS) \> 0 to 10 and a 4th question about "how many days did pain keep the patient from doing usual activities" \> 0 to 30 days. These 4 questions lead to a incapacity score from 0 to 6
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
ANTONIO BIANCO Ortodontista e Osteopata
Gussago Bs, Brescia, Italy
Osteopata MARCO SBARBARO
Robassomero, Torino, Italy
Time frame: Beginning (day 0); during treatment (day 30 and day 90); end (day 180)
Evidence of a change from baseline in the "frequency" component of facial pain (a component of the primary outcome measure), on the basis of a questionnaire developed by the authors.
One question: "During the last 30 days, how many days did you have facial pain?" \> 0 to 30 days
Time frame: Beginning (day 0); during treatment (day 30 and day 90); end (day 180)
Evidence of a change from baseline in the "taking the most specific medication for painful attacks" component of facial pain (a component of the primary outcome measure), on the basis of a questionnaire developed by the authors.
One question: "During the last 30 days, which drugs did you take to improve your facial pain?". Only one drug is taken into account: the most specific one used for facial pain \> number of gram for the last month.
Time frame: Beginning (day 0); during treatment (day 30 and day 90); end (day 180)
Evidence of a change from baseline in functional incapacity (a component of the primary outcome measure), on the basis of a questionnaire called " the Jaw Functional Limitation Scale (JFLS-20)".
20 Visual Analogic Scales (VAS) \> 0 to 10. The scoring = the sum (0 to 200).
Time frame: Beginning (day 0); during treatment (day 30 and day 90); end (day 180)
Evidence of a change from baseline in oral behaviors induced by hypertonia, on the basis of a questionnaire developed by the authors and called "the short version of the Oral Behavior Checklist (OBC)".
10 Visual Analogic Scales (VAS) \> 0 to 4. The scoring = the sum (0 to 40).
Time frame: Beginning (day 0); during treatment (day 30 and day 90); end (day 180)
Evidence of a change from baseline in dysacusis and feelings of dizziness, on the basis of a specific questionnaire developed by the authors.
7 Visual Analogic Scales (VAS) \> 0 to 4. The scoring = the sum (0 to 28).
Time frame: Beginning (day 0) and end (day 180)
Evidence of a change from baseline in the patient's compliance with the treatment, on the basis of a questionnaire developed by the authors.
2 Visual Analogic Scales (VAS) about both "observation" and "exercices" \> 0 to 10. The scoring = the sum (0 to 20).
Time frame: During treatment (day 30 and day 90) and end (day 180)
Evidence of the patient's subjective impressions of the treatment, on the basis of a questionnaire developed by the authors.
3 Visual Analogic Scales (VAS) about "difficulty of the treatment", "impact of the treatment on the long term" and "treatment easy to use in case of recurrence \> 0 to 10. The scoring = the sum (0 to 30).
Time frame: end (day 180)
Evidence of correlations between the patient's psychological state (assessed with the HAD and SCL-90R) and the therapeutic efficacy of the approach (assessed by the patient's overall relief).
2 questionnaires: * Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): 7 questions about anxiety (0 to 3) \> Scoring = sum (0 to 21) and 7 questions about depression (0 to 3) \> Scoring = sum (0 to 21). * Symptom Check-List (SCL 90 R): 90 questions about personality (0 to 4) \> Scoring = 9 dimensions of the personality. See if there is a correlation between psychological state and therapeutic efficacy
Time frame: Beginning (day 0)
Evidence of correlations between the patient's psychological state (assessed with the HAD and SCL-90R) and compliance with the treatment (assessed with a numerical scale created by the team in anticipation of the study).
2 questionnaires: * Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): 7 questions about anxiety (0 to 3) \> Scoring = sum (0 to 21) and 7 questions about depression (0 to 3) \> Scoring = sum (0 to 21). * Symptom Check-List (SCL 90 R): 90 questions about personality (0 to 4) \> Scoring = 9 dimensions of the personality. See if there is a correlation between psychological state and compliance
Time frame: Beginning (day 0)
Evidence of the percentage of subjects diagnosed as hypertonic among all the patients diagnosed as having TMD (whether or not included in the study) by tracking the patients with a flowchart developed by the authors.
flowchart filled in by all investigators. At the top of the flowchart: all patients diagnosed TMD. The flowchart integrates all hypertonic patients. See the ratio: hypertonic TMD patients / All TMD patients.
Time frame: end (day 180)