Paulo César R Conti1, Juliana Stuginski-Barbosa2, Leonardo R Bonjardim3, Simone Soares4, Peter Svensson5. 1. Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: pcconti@fob.usp.br. 2. Doctorate Student, Department of Prosthodontics, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Professor, Departament of Biological Sciences, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. Professor, Section of Clinical Oral Physiology, Department of Dentistry, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark; Center for Functionally Integrative Neuroscience (CFIN), MindLab, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effect of contingent electrical stimulation (CES) on present pain intensity (PI), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and electromyographic events per hour of sleep (EMG/h) on probable bruxers with masticatory myofascial pain. STUDY DESIGN: The study enrolled 15 probable bruxers with masticatory myofascial pain in 3 phases: (1) baseline EMG/h recording, (2) biofeedback treatment using a CES paradigm (active group, n = 7) or inactive device (control group, n = 8), and (3) posttreatment EMG/h recording. PI and PPT were assessed after each phase. Analysis of variance models were used to compare results at a 5% significance level. RESULTS: Patients in the active group had 35% lower EMG/h in P2 and 38.4% lower EMG/h in P3, when compared with baseline. There were no differences in PI or PPT levels at any phase. CONCLUSIONS:CES could reduce EMG activity associated with sleep bruxism in patients with masticatory myofascial pain but did not influence perceived pain.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effect of contingent electrical stimulation (CES) on present pain intensity (PI), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and electromyographic events per hour of sleep (EMG/h) on probable bruxers with masticatory myofascial pain. STUDY DESIGN: The study enrolled 15 probable bruxers with masticatory myofascial pain in 3 phases: (1) baseline EMG/h recording, (2) biofeedback treatment using a CES paradigm (active group, n = 7) or inactive device (control group, n = 8), and (3) posttreatment EMG/h recording. PI and PPT were assessed after each phase. Analysis of variance models were used to compare results at a 5% significance level. RESULTS:Patients in the active group had 35% lower EMG/h in P2 and 38.4% lower EMG/h in P3, when compared with baseline. There were no differences in PI or PPT levels at any phase. CONCLUSIONS:CES could reduce EMG activity associated with sleep bruxism in patients with masticatory myofascial pain but did not influence perceived pain.
Authors: Mauro Elias Mesko; Brian Hutton; Jovito Adiel Skupien; Rafael Sarkis-Onofre; David Moher; Tatiana Pereira-Cenci Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2017-01-13