Burning mouth syndrome Jääskeläinen, Satu K; Woda, Alain
Cephalalgia,
06/2017, Letnik:
37, Številka:
7
Book Review, Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Objective
To review the clinical entity of primary burning mouth syndrome (BMS), its pathophysiological mechanisms, accurate new diagnostic methods and evidence-based treatment options, and to ...describe novel lines for future research regarding aetiology, pathophysiology, and new therapeutic strategies.
Description
Primary BMS is a chronic neuropathic intraoral pain condition that despite typical symptoms lacks clear clinical signs of neuropathic involvement. With advanced diagnostic methods, such as quantitative sensory testing of small somatosensory and taste afferents, neurophysiological recordings of the trigeminal system, and peripheral nerve blocks, most BMS patients can be classified into the peripheral or central type of neuropathic pain. These two types differ regarding pathophysiological mechanisms, efficacy of available treatments, and psychiatric comorbidity. The two types may overlap in individual patients. BMS is most frequent in postmenopausal women, with general population prevalence of around 1%. Treatment of BMS is difficult; best evidence exists for efficacy of topical and systemic clonazepam. Hormonal substitution, dopaminergic medications, and therapeutic non-invasive neuromodulation may provide efficient mechanism-based treatments for BMS in the future.
Conclusion
We present a novel comprehensive hypothesis of primary BMS, gathering the hormonal, neuropathic, and genetic factors presumably required in the genesis of the condition. This will aid in future research on pathophysiology and risk factors of BMS, and boost treatment trials taking into account individual mechanism profiles and subgroup-clusters.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Primary burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is defined as an "intraoral burning or dysaesthetic sensation, recurring daily… more than 3 months, without clinically evident causative lesions" (IHS 2013). In ...addition to pain, taste alterations are frequent (dysgeusia, xerostomia). Although lacking clinical signs of neuropathy, more accurate diagnostic methods have shown neuropathic involvement at various levels of the neuraxis in BMS: peripheral small fiber damage (thermal quantitative sensory testing, electrogustatometry, epithelial nerve fiber density), trigeminal system lesions in the periphery or the brainstem (brainstem reflex recordings, trigeminal neurography, evoked potentials), or signs of decreased inhibition within the central nervous system (deficient brainstem reflex habituation, positive signs in quantitative sensory testing, neurotransmitter-positron emission tomography findings indicative of deficient striatal dopamine function). Abnormalities in electrogustatometry indicate the involvement of the small Aδ taste afferents, in addition to somatosensory small fibers. According to these findings, the clinical entity of BMS can be divided into 2 main subtypes compatible with either peripheral or central neuropathic pain, which may overlap in individual patients. The central type does not respond to local treatments and associates often with psychiatric comorbidity (depression or anxiety), whereas the peripheral type responds to peripheral lidocaine blocks and topical clonazepam. Burning mouth syndrome is most prevalent in postmenopausal women, having led to a hypothesis that BMS is triggered as a consequence of nervous system damage caused by neurotoxic factors affecting especially vulnerable small fibers and basal ganglia in a setting of decrease in neuroprotective gonadal hormones and increase in stress hormone levels, typical for menopause.
Highlights ► Most patients with primary burning mouth sdr (BMS) suffer from subclinical neuropathic pain. ► Lesions at several levels of neuraxis can give rise to clinically similar BMS symptoms. ► ...Three distinct subclasses of BMS have been neurophysiologically characterized: (i) Peripheral small fibre neuropathy (ii) Subclinical major trigeminal neuropathy (iii) Central pain that maybe related to deficient dopaminergic top-down inhibition. ► Accurate diagnosis can only be done with neurophysiologic, psychophysical and neuropathological tests.
Orofacial pain syndromes encompass several clinically defined and classified entities. The focus here is on the role of clinical neurophysiologic and psychophysical tests in the diagnosis, ...differential diagnosis, and pathophysiological mechanisms of definite trigeminal neuropathic pain and other chronic orofacial pain conditions (excluding headache and temporomandibular disorders). The International Classification of Headache Disorders 2018 classifies these facial pain disorders under the heading Painful cranial neuropathies and other facial pains. In addition to unambiguous painful posttraumatic or postherpetic trigeminal neuropathies, burning mouth syndrome, persistent idiopathic facial and dental pain, and trigeminal neuralgia have also been identified with neurophysiologic and quantitative sensory testing to involve the nervous system. Despite normal clinical examination, these all include clusters of patients with evidence for either peripheral or central nervous system pathology compatible with the subclinical end of a continuum of trigeminal neuropathic pain conditions. Useful tests in the diagnostic process include electroneuromyography with specific needle, neurography techniques for the inferior alveolar and infraorbital nerves, brain stem reflex recordings (blink reflex with stimulation of the supraorbital, infraorbital, mental, and lingual nerves; jaw jerk; masseter silent period), evoked potential recordings, and quantitative sensory testing. Habituation of the blink reflex and evoked potential responses to repeated stimuli evaluate top-down inhibition, and navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation allows the mapping of reorganization within the motor cortex in chronic neuropathic pain. With systematic use of neurophysiologic and quantitative sensory testing, many of the current ambiguities in the diagnosis, classification, and understanding of chronic orofacial syndromes can be clarified for clinical practice and future research.
Here we review the literature assessing the roles of the brain dopaminergic and serotonergic systems in the modulation of pain as revealed by in vivo human studies using positron emission tomography. ...In healthy subjects, dopamine D2/D3 receptor availability particularly in the striatum and serotonin 5-HT1A and 5-HT2A receptor availabilities in the cortex predict the subject's response to tonic experimental pain. High availability of dopamine D2/D3 or serotonin 5-HT2A receptors is associated with high pain intensity, whereas high availability of 5-HT1A receptors associates with low pain intensity. Chronic neuropathic pain is associated with high striatal dopamine D2/D3 receptor availability, for which low endogenous dopamine tone is a plausible explanation, although a compensatory increase in striatal dopamine D2/D3 receptor density may also contribute. In contrast, chronic musculoskeletal pain is associated with low baseline availability of striatal dopamine D2/D3 receptors. In healthy subjects, brain serotonin 5-HT1A as well as dopamine D2/D3 receptor availabilities associate with the subject's response criterion rather than the capacity to discriminate painful thermal stimuli suggesting that these neurotransmitter systems act mainly on non-sensory rather than sensory factors of thermally induced pain experience. Additionally, 5-HT1A receptor availability predicts the subject's discriminative ability but not response criterion for non-painful tactile test stimuli, while no such correlation is observed with dopamine D2/D3 receptors. These findings suggest that dopamine acting on striatal dopamine D2/D3 receptors and serotonin acting on cortical 5-HT1A and 5-HT2A receptors contribute to top-down pain regulation in humans.
•rTMS can produce significant clinical improvement in various neurological and psychiatric disorders.•Updated guidelines on the therapeutic use of rTMS are presented, including 2014–2018 ...publications.•Higher evidence of efficacy is present in the areas of depression, pain, and postacute motor stroke.
A group of European experts reappraised the guidelines on the therapeutic efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) previously published in 2014 Lefaucheur et al., Clin Neurophysiol 2014;125:2150–206. These updated recommendations take into account all rTMS publications, including data prior to 2014, as well as currently reviewed literature until the end of 2018. Level A evidence (definite efficacy) was reached for: high-frequency (HF) rTMS of the primary motor cortex (M1) contralateral to the painful side for neuropathic pain; HF-rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) using a figure-of-8 or a H1-coil for depression; low-frequency (LF) rTMS of contralesional M1 for hand motor recovery in the post-acute stage of stroke. Level B evidence (probable efficacy) was reached for: HF-rTMS of the left M1 or DLPFC for improving quality of life or pain, respectively, in fibromyalgia; HF-rTMS of bilateral M1 regions or the left DLPFC for improving motor impairment or depression, respectively, in Parkinson’s disease; HF-rTMS of ipsilesional M1 for promoting motor recovery at the post-acute stage of stroke; intermittent theta burst stimulation targeted to the leg motor cortex for lower limb spasticity in multiple sclerosis; HF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in posttraumatic stress disorder; LF-rTMS of the right inferior frontal gyrus in chronic post-stroke non-fluent aphasia; LF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in depression; and bihemispheric stimulation of the DLPFC combining right-sided LF-rTMS (or continuous theta burst stimulation) and left-sided HF-rTMS (or intermittent theta burst stimulation) in depression. Level A/B evidence is not reached concerning efficacy of rTMS in any other condition. The current recommendations are based on the differences reached in therapeutic efficacy of real vs. sham rTMS protocols, replicated in a sufficient number of independent studies. This does not mean that the benefit produced by rTMS inevitably reaches a level of clinical relevance.
•The blink reflex (BR) is a powerful electrodiagnostic tool, including but also reaching beyond disorders involving the trigemino-facial system.•Alterations in BR excitability are present in ...dysfunctions of many supranuclear circuits.•BR excitability modulation aids in further understanding the physiology and pathophysiology of movement control and chronic pain.
The blink reflex (BR) is integrated at the brainstem; however, it is modulated by inputs from various structures such as the striatum, globus pallidus, substantia nigra, and nucleus raphe magnus but also from afferent input from the peripheral nervous system. Therefore, it provides information about the pathophysiology of numerous peripheral and central nervous system disorders. The BR is a valuable tool for studying the integrity of the trigemino-facial system, the relevant brainstem nuclei, and circuits. At the same time, some neurophysiological techniques applying the BR may indicate abnormalities involving structures rostral to the brainstem that modulate or control the BR circuits. This is a state-of-the-art review of the clinical application of BR modulation; physiology is reviewed in part 1. In this review, we aim to present the role of the BR and techniques related to its modulation in understanding pathophysiological mechanisms of motor control and pain disorders, in which these techniques are diagnostically helpful. Furthermore, some BR techniques may have a predictive value or serve as a basis for follow-up evaluation. BR testing may benefit in the diagnosis of hemifacial spasm, dystonia, functional movement disorders, migraine, orofacial pain, and psychiatric disorders. Although the abnormalities in the integrity of the BR pathway itself may provide information about trigeminal or facial nerve disorders, alterations in BR excitability are found in several disease conditions. BR excitability studies are suitable for understanding the common pathophysiological mechanisms behind various clinical entities, elucidating alterations in top-down inhibitory systems, and allowing for follow-up and quantitation of many neurological syndromes.
Adults with chronic low back pain, disability, moderate-to-severe pain, and high fear of movement and reinjury were recruited into a trial of a novel, automated, digital therapeutics, virtual ...reality, psychological intervention for pain (DTxP). We conducted a 3-arm, prospective, double-blind, pilot, randomized, controlled trial comparing DTxP with a sham placebo comparator and an open-label standard care. Participants were enrolled for 6 to 8 weeks, after which, the standard care control arm were rerandomized to receive either the DTxP or sham placebo. Forty-two participants completed assessments at baseline, immediately posttreatment (6-8 weeks), 9-week, and 5-month follow-up. We found that participants in the DTxP group reported greater reductions in fear of movement and better global impression of change when compared with sham placebo and standard care post treatment. No other group differences were noted at posttreatment or follow-up. When compared with baseline, participants in the DTxP group reported lower disability at 5-month follow-up, lower pain interference and fear of movement post treatment and follow-up, and lower pain intensity at posttreatment. The sham placebo group also reported lower disability and fear of movement at 5-month follow-up compared with baseline. Standard care did not report any significant changes. There were a number of adverse events, with one participant reporting a serious adverse event in the sham placebo, which was not related to treatment. No substantial changes in medications were noted, and participants in the DTxP group reported positive gaming experiences.
PDF
