| Literature DB >> 31698733 |
Aleksandra Nitecka-Buchta1, Anna Nowak-Wachol1, Kacper Wachol1, Karolina Walczyńska-Dragon1, Paweł Olczyk2, Olgierd Batoryna2, Wojciech Kempa3, Stefan Baron1.
Abstract
(1) Background: The healing properties of cannabidiol (CBD) have been known for centuries. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficiency of the myorelaxant effect of CBD after the transdermal application in patients with myofascial pain. (2)Entities:
Keywords: CBD; EMG; TMD; bruxism; cannabidiol; masseter muscle; myofascial Pain
Year: 2019 PMID: 31698733 PMCID: PMC6912397 DOI: 10.3390/jcm8111886
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 12D ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol structure and cannabidiol structure.
Figure 2Flow chart of the two arms consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT)-randomized study.
Figure 3Distribution of gender in experimental and control groups.
Structure of Group I and Group II main descriptive values.
| Variables | Group1 | Group2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 60 | 30 | 30 |
| Sex | Female/male | 18/12 | 15/15 |
| Age | 23.2 (SD = 1.6) | 22.6 (SD = 1.86) | |
| RDC/TMD | Ia | 9 | 13 |
| Ib | 21 | 17 |
Cannabinoid content in Charlotte’s Web Hemp Extract Oil Formula Olive Oil (according to Stanley Brothers Boulder Certificate).
| Parameter | Concentration |
|---|---|
| Hemp Extract | 70 mg/serving |
| Cannabinoids | |
| THC | 0.00 mg/mL |
| THC-A | <0.0467 mg/mL |
| THC-V | <0.0467 mg/mL |
| CBD | 66.97 mg/mL |
| CBD-A | 0.461 mg/mL |
| CBD-V | 0.280 mg/mL |
| CBG | 2.05 mg/mL |
| CBG-A | <0.0467 mg/mL |
| CBN | <0.0467 mg/mL |
| CBC | 3.74 mg/mL |
Minimal sample size for Student’s t-tests for dependent samples (TP = test power).
| Group | Variable | Correlation | Minimal Sample Size | Minimal Sample Size |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | EMG I(P) vs. EMG II(P) | 0.49282210 | 17 (TP = 0.9563) | 23 (TP = 0.9915) |
| 1 | EMG I(L) vs. EMG II(L) | 0.39039193 | 15 (TP = 0.9502) | 21 (TP = 0.9919) |
| 2 | EMG I(P) vs. EMG II(P) | 0.77346774 | 64047 (TP = 0.9500) | 90551 (TP = 0.9900) |
| 2 | EMG I(L) vs. EMG II(L) | 0.46762877 | 404 (TP = 0.9502) | 570 (TP = 0.9900) |
Normality tests of all variables.
| Group | Variable | Test Statistic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | EMG I(P) | 0.96100 | 0.32840 |
| 1 | EMG I(L) | 0.96796 | 0.48497 |
| 1 | EMG II(P) | 0.94409 | 0.11721 |
| 1 | EMG II(L) | 0.96608 | 0.43811 |
| 2 | EMG I(P) | 0.94729 | 0.14295 |
| 2 | EMG I(L) | 0.95238 | 0.19573 |
| 2 | EMG II(P) | 0.93287 | 0.05855 |
| 2 | EMG II(L) | 0.96379 | 0.38573 |
Student’s t-test for means of dependent samples.
| Variable | Sample Difference in Means | Test Statistic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group1(P) | 0.036333 | 5.198612 | 0.000015 |
| Group1(L) | 0.034000 | 5.493967 | 0.000006 |
| Group2(P) | 0.000667 | 0.077980 | 0.938379 |
| Group2(L) | 0.012333 | 0.985221 | 0.332664 |
Results of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
| Variable | Test Statistic | |
|---|---|---|
| Group1(P) | 5.500000 | 0.000005 |
| Group1(L) | 5.500000 | 0.000005 |
| Group2(P) | 178.00000 | 0.569163 |
| Group2(L) | 194.00000 | 0.611352 |
Results of sign tests.
| Variable | |
|---|---|
| Group1(P) | 0.000008 |
| Group1(L) | 0.000001 |
| Group2(P) | 0.850107 |
| Group2(L) | 0.710347 |
Main descriptive statistics.
| Group | Variable | Mean | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | EMG I(P) | 0.273333 | 0.026824 |
| 1 | EMG I(L) | 0.270667 | 0.026514 |
| 1 | EMG II(P) | 0.237000 | 0.043561 |
| 1 | EMG II(L) | 0.236667 | 0.033869 |
| 2 | EMG I(P) | 0.292000 | 0.070925 |
| 2 | EMG I(L) | 0.299000 | 0.068247 |
| 2 | EMG II(P) | 0.291333 | 0.067962 |
| 2 | EMG II(L) | 0.286667 | 0.064505 |
Comparison of Group1 “cannabidiol (CBD)” and Group2 “placebo” group.
| Variable | Student | Wald–Wolfowitz Runs Test | Mann–Whitney |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group1/Group2(P) | 0.005000 | 0.434659 | 0.002157 |
| Group1/Group2(L) | 0.000000 | 0.068318 | 0.001638 |
t-Student tests for means of dependent samples.
| Variable | Sample Difference Means | Test Statistic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group1 VAS | 3.93 | 13.31971 | 0.000000 |
| Group2 VAS | 0.50 | 2.715305 | 0.011038 |
Results of Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests.
| Variable | Test Statistic W | |
|---|---|---|
| Group1 VAS | 0.00 | 0.000003 |
| Group2 VAS | 37.50 | 0.020672 |
Results of sign tests.
| Variable | |
|---|---|
| Group1 VAS | 0.000000 |
| Group2 VAS | 0.021781 |
Main descriptive statistics for pain intensity changes in VAS Visual Analogue Scale.
| Variable | Mean | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|
| VASI Group1 | 5.60 | 1.379655 |
| VASII Group1 | 1.67 | 1.446359 |
| VASI Group2 | 5.10 | 1.268994 |
| VASII Group2 | 4.60 | 1.588754 |
Comparison of Group1 and Group2 after 14 days.
| Variable | Wald-Wolfowitz Runs Test | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| VASII Group1/VASII Group2 | 0.000000 | 0.000159 | 0.000000 |
Figure 4Normalized surface electromyographic (sEMG) mean values of masseter muscle activity at rest position in Group1 and Group2; on Day 0 (I) and on follow-up visit on Day 14 (II) of the therapy; on left (L) and right (R) masseter muscle.
Figure 5Pain intensity changes in VAS scale in Group1 and Group2 on Day0 (I) and on Day 14 (II) of the therapy.