Conditioned Pain Modulation Differences in Central and Peripheral Burning Mouth Syndrome (BMS) Patients.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Guangju Yang, Jianqiu Jin, Kelun Wang, Lene Baad-Hansen, Hongwei Liu, Ye Cao, Qiu-Fei Xie, Peter Svensson
{"title":"Conditioned Pain Modulation Differences in Central and Peripheral Burning Mouth Syndrome (BMS) Patients.","authors":"Guangju Yang, Jianqiu Jin, Kelun Wang, Lene Baad-Hansen, Hongwei Liu, Ye Cao, Qiu-Fei Xie, Peter Svensson","doi":"10.1111/joor.13876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in burning mouth syndrome (BMS) patients with different pain mechanisms.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty BMS patients (52.0 ± 6.8 years, 17 women and 3 men) and age- and gender-matched 22 healthy controls were enrolled in this randomised controlled trial. The patients received an active lingual nerve block (lidocaine) and a placebo injection (saline) randomly with an interval of 1 week in a double-blinded manner. Patients evaluated their pain intensity on a 0- to 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) before and after each injection, with or without CPM. Based on the anaesthesia effect, BMS patients were divided into two groups with presumed different pain mechanisms; a 'central subgroup (n = 11)' with pain relief less than 1 cm and 'peripheral subgroup (n = 9)' with pain relief more than 1 cm on the VAS. Mechanical pain threshold (MPT) and wind-up ratio (WUR) were investigated at two oral mucosa regions: the region with most intense symptoms and a control region for the patient group; tongue and buccal region for the control group. CPM was induced by immersing the left hand into cold water. A moderate level of pain (around five on the VAS) was obtained by adjusting the water temperature. MPT and WUR were measured twice for all the participants with and without CPM, which was analysed and presented as relative change in MPT and WUR. Differences between groups were analysed using two-way ANOVA. Differences within group between tests were assessed by paired t-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At baseline, there were no significant group differences for MPT or WUR between BMS patients and healthy controls (p ≥ 0.156). The mean bath temperature to evoke moderate pain for the BMS group was significantly lower than that for the healthy control group (8.9°C vs. 11.9°C, p = 0.003). The CPM evoked an inhibitory modulation in 18.2%-44.4% of BMS patients, while for the healthy group, the ratio was 68.2%-81.8%. Central BMS patients had smaller CPM effects than healthy participants at the painful site and control site, which indicated a decreased CPM function (p ≤ 0.034). Peripheral BMS patients had lower CPM effects than healthy participants only at the painful site (p = 0.037).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present findings documented impairment of central nociceptive inhibition processing in BMS patients which was more extensive in central BMS than peripheral BMS. These findings add to the suggestion that BMS may a heterogeneous pain condition with at least two different phenotypes.</p>","PeriodicalId":16605,"journal":{"name":"Journal of oral rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of oral rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.13876","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in burning mouth syndrome (BMS) patients with different pain mechanisms.

Materials and methods: Twenty BMS patients (52.0 ± 6.8 years, 17 women and 3 men) and age- and gender-matched 22 healthy controls were enrolled in this randomised controlled trial. The patients received an active lingual nerve block (lidocaine) and a placebo injection (saline) randomly with an interval of 1 week in a double-blinded manner. Patients evaluated their pain intensity on a 0- to 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) before and after each injection, with or without CPM. Based on the anaesthesia effect, BMS patients were divided into two groups with presumed different pain mechanisms; a 'central subgroup (n = 11)' with pain relief less than 1 cm and 'peripheral subgroup (n = 9)' with pain relief more than 1 cm on the VAS. Mechanical pain threshold (MPT) and wind-up ratio (WUR) were investigated at two oral mucosa regions: the region with most intense symptoms and a control region for the patient group; tongue and buccal region for the control group. CPM was induced by immersing the left hand into cold water. A moderate level of pain (around five on the VAS) was obtained by adjusting the water temperature. MPT and WUR were measured twice for all the participants with and without CPM, which was analysed and presented as relative change in MPT and WUR. Differences between groups were analysed using two-way ANOVA. Differences within group between tests were assessed by paired t-test.

Results: At baseline, there were no significant group differences for MPT or WUR between BMS patients and healthy controls (p ≥ 0.156). The mean bath temperature to evoke moderate pain for the BMS group was significantly lower than that for the healthy control group (8.9°C vs. 11.9°C, p = 0.003). The CPM evoked an inhibitory modulation in 18.2%-44.4% of BMS patients, while for the healthy group, the ratio was 68.2%-81.8%. Central BMS patients had smaller CPM effects than healthy participants at the painful site and control site, which indicated a decreased CPM function (p ≤ 0.034). Peripheral BMS patients had lower CPM effects than healthy participants only at the painful site (p = 0.037).

Conclusions: The present findings documented impairment of central nociceptive inhibition processing in BMS patients which was more extensive in central BMS than peripheral BMS. These findings add to the suggestion that BMS may a heterogeneous pain condition with at least two different phenotypes.

中枢性和外周性烧灼口腔综合征(BMS)患者的条件性疼痛调节差异。
目的:评估不同疼痛机制的烧灼口腔综合征(BMS)患者的条件性疼痛调节(CPM):这项随机对照试验招募了 20 名灼热口腔综合征患者(52.0 ± 6.8 岁,17 名女性和 3 名男性)以及年龄和性别匹配的 22 名健康对照者。患者在双盲的情况下随机接受活性舌神经阻滞注射(利多卡因)和安慰剂注射(生理盐水),间隔时间为一周。每次注射前后,患者都会用 0 至 10 厘米的视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估自己的疼痛强度,无论是否使用 CPM。根据麻醉效果,BMS 患者被分为推测疼痛机制不同的两组:疼痛缓解小于 1 厘米的 "中心亚组(n = 11)"和疼痛缓解大于 VAS 1 厘米的 "外周亚组(n = 9)"。在两个口腔粘膜区域调查了机械痛阈值(MPT)和上卷率(WUR):患者组为症状最强烈的区域和对照组区域;对照组为舌头和颊部区域。将左手浸入冷水中可诱发 CPM。通过调节水温可获得中等程度的疼痛(VAS 值约为 5)。对有和没有 CPM 的所有参与者的 MPT 和 WUR 进行了两次测量,并以 MPT 和 WUR 的相对变化进行分析和呈现。组间差异采用双向方差分析。组内不同测试之间的差异采用配对 t 检验:基线时,BMS 患者和健康对照组之间的 MPT 或 WUR 没有明显的组间差异(p ≥ 0.156)。BMS 组唤起中度疼痛的平均浴温明显低于健康对照组(8.9°C vs. 11.9°C,p = 0.003)。18.2%-44.4%的 BMS 患者的 CPM 会诱发抑制性调节,而健康对照组的这一比例为 68.2%-81.8%。中枢性 BMS 患者在疼痛部位和对照部位的 CPM 作用小于健康参与者,这表明 CPM 功能下降(p ≤ 0.034)。外周 BMS 患者仅在疼痛部位的 CPM 效应低于健康参与者(p = 0.037):本研究结果表明,BMS 患者的中枢痛觉抑制处理功能受损,且中枢 BMS 比外周 BMS 的受损范围更广。这些发现进一步表明,BMS 可能是一种异质性疼痛,至少有两种不同的表型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of oral rehabilitation
Journal of oral rehabilitation 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
10.30%
发文量
116
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Oral Rehabilitation aims to be the most prestigious journal of dental research within all aspects of oral rehabilitation and applied oral physiology. It covers all diagnostic and clinical management aspects necessary to re-establish a subjective and objective harmonious oral function. Oral rehabilitation may become necessary as a result of developmental or acquired disturbances in the orofacial region, orofacial traumas, or a variety of dental and oral diseases (primarily dental caries and periodontal diseases) and orofacial pain conditions. As such, oral rehabilitation in the twenty-first century is a matter of skilful diagnosis and minimal, appropriate intervention, the nature of which is intimately linked to a profound knowledge of oral physiology, oral biology, and dental and oral pathology. The scientific content of the journal therefore strives to reflect the best of evidence-based clinical dentistry. Modern clinical management should be based on solid scientific evidence gathered about diagnostic procedures and the properties and efficacy of the chosen intervention (e.g. material science, biological, toxicological, pharmacological or psychological aspects). The content of the journal also reflects documentation of the possible side-effects of rehabilitation, and includes prognostic perspectives of the treatment modalities chosen.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信