Comparison of Pain-Generated Functional Outcomes in Experimental Models of Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness and Nerve Growth Factor Injection of the Masticatory Muscles.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Yuanxiu Zhang, Fernando G Exposto, Anastasios Grigoriadis, Frank Lobbezoo, Michail Koutris, Jinglu Zhang, Lin Wang, Peter Svensson
{"title":"Comparison of Pain-Generated Functional Outcomes in Experimental Models of Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness and Nerve Growth Factor Injection of the Masticatory Muscles.","authors":"Yuanxiu Zhang,&nbsp;Fernando G Exposto,&nbsp;Anastasios Grigoriadis,&nbsp;Frank Lobbezoo,&nbsp;Michail Koutris,&nbsp;Jinglu Zhang,&nbsp;Lin Wang,&nbsp;Peter Svensson","doi":"10.11607/ofph.2623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To compare two pain models of myalgic TMD, delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) and injections of nerve growth factor (NGF), in terms of pain-related and motor function outcomes, as well as activity-related temporal summation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifty age- and gender-matched healthy participants were recruited and randomized into one of three groups: to a repeated eccentric contraction task to cause DOMS (n = 20), to receive NGF injections into the masseter muscle (n = 20), or to a control group (n = 10). Mechanical sensitivity of masticatory muscles, chewing parameters, jaw function limitation, maximum bite force, and activity-related temporal summation were assessed at baseline and at days 1, 2, and 7 following the intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to baseline, both model groups showed increased mechanical sensitivity, jaw function limitation, pain on chewing, and decreased chewing efficiency, lasting longer in the NGF group than in the DOMS group (P < .05). Furthermore, also compared to baseline, the NGF group showed increased pain on maximum bite and decreased pain-free maximum opening (P < .05). No increases in activity-related temporal summation were shown for any of the model groups when compared to baseline or the control group (P > .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both models produced similar pain-related outcomes, with the NGF model having a longer effect. Furthermore, the NGF model showed a more substantial effect on motor function, which was not seen for the DOMS model. Finally, neither of the models were able to provoke activity-related temporal summation of pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":48800,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache","volume":"34 4","pages":"311-322"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ofph.2623","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Aims: To compare two pain models of myalgic TMD, delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) and injections of nerve growth factor (NGF), in terms of pain-related and motor function outcomes, as well as activity-related temporal summation.

Methods: Fifty age- and gender-matched healthy participants were recruited and randomized into one of three groups: to a repeated eccentric contraction task to cause DOMS (n = 20), to receive NGF injections into the masseter muscle (n = 20), or to a control group (n = 10). Mechanical sensitivity of masticatory muscles, chewing parameters, jaw function limitation, maximum bite force, and activity-related temporal summation were assessed at baseline and at days 1, 2, and 7 following the intervention.

Results: Compared to baseline, both model groups showed increased mechanical sensitivity, jaw function limitation, pain on chewing, and decreased chewing efficiency, lasting longer in the NGF group than in the DOMS group (P < .05). Furthermore, also compared to baseline, the NGF group showed increased pain on maximum bite and decreased pain-free maximum opening (P < .05). No increases in activity-related temporal summation were shown for any of the model groups when compared to baseline or the control group (P > .05).

Conclusion: Both models produced similar pain-related outcomes, with the NGF model having a longer effect. Furthermore, the NGF model showed a more substantial effect on motor function, which was not seen for the DOMS model. Finally, neither of the models were able to provoke activity-related temporal summation of pain.

咀嚼肌延迟性肌肉酸痛与神经生长因子注射实验模型疼痛功能结局的比较。
目的:比较肌痛性TMD的两种疼痛模型,迟发性肌肉酸痛(DOMS)和注射神经生长因子(NGF),在疼痛相关和运动功能结局以及活动相关的时间总和方面。方法:招募50名年龄和性别匹配的健康参与者,并将其随机分为三组:重复偏心收缩任务导致DOMS (n = 20),接受咬肌NGF注射(n = 20),或对照组(n = 10)。在基线和干预后的第1、2和7天评估咀嚼肌的机械敏感性、咀嚼参数、颌骨功能限制、最大咬合力和活动相关的时间总和。结果:与基线比较,两种模型组均表现出机械敏感性增高、颌功能受限、咀嚼疼痛、咀嚼效率下降,且NGF组持续时间较DOMS组长(P < 0.05)。此外,与基线相比,NGF组最大咬合疼痛增加,无痛最大开口减少(P < 0.05)。与基线或对照组相比,任何模型组的活动相关时间总和均未增加(P > 0.05)。结论:两种模型均产生相似的疼痛相关结果,NGF模型的效果更持久。此外,NGF模型对运动功能的影响更大,这在DOMS模型中没有发现。最后,两种模型都不能引起与活动相关的疼痛时间累积。
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 & Facial Pain and Headache
Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Founded upon sound scientific principles, this journal continues to make important contributions that strongly influence the work of dental and medical professionals involved in treating oral and facial pain, including temporomandibular disorders, and headache. In addition to providing timely scientific research and clinical articles, the journal presents diagnostic techniques and treatment therapies for oral and facial pain, headache, mandibular dysfunction, and occlusion and covers pharmacology, physical therapy, surgery, and other pain-management methods.
×
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