Concordance among different pain scales in patients with dental pain.

Journal of orofacial pain Pub Date : 2012-01-01
Patrícia dos Santos Calderon, Raniel Fernandes Peixoto, Vinícius Maron Gomes, Ana Sílvia da Mota Corrêa, Eloísa Nassar de Alencar, Leylha Maria Nunes Rossetti, Paulo César Rodrigues Conti
{"title":"Concordance among different pain scales in patients with dental pain.","authors":"Patrícia dos Santos Calderon,&nbsp;Raniel Fernandes Peixoto,&nbsp;Vinícius Maron Gomes,&nbsp;Ana Sílvia da Mota Corrêa,&nbsp;Eloísa Nassar de Alencar,&nbsp;Leylha Maria Nunes Rossetti,&nbsp;Paulo César Rodrigues Conti","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To evaluate the concordance among different pain scales for evaluation of pain in toothache patients and to assess the influence of oral health on the quality of life of those patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety-two patients seeking treatment for toothache were evaluated before and after treatment. At baseline and 1 week after the dental treatment, the patients were requested to fill out the Oral Health Impact Profile Inventory (OHIP-14) as well as the following pain scales: the visual analog scale (VAS), numeric scale (NS), verbal rating scale (VRS), and Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R). The data were analyzed by Pearson correlation, Student t test, and analysis of variance for repeated measurements, with a significance level of 5%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients were, on average, 34.4 years old. The sample was composed of 50 women and 42 men. Fifty-eight patients had dental pain of pulpal origin, and 34 had pain of periodontal origin. The mean OHIP score was 20.83 at baseline and 5.0 at 1 week after the completion of the dental treatment. The mean values of the scales at baseline were 50.7 mm, 56.7 mm, 52.2 mm, and 52.9 mm for the VAS, NS, VRS, and FPS-R, respectively. One week after the treatment, these values were 7.5 mm, 9.4 mm, 10.9 mm, and 8.7 mm. A positive correlation was detected between all four scales at baseline and also 1 week after the treatment (P < .05). At baseline, the NS was significantly different from the other scales. This difference, however, was not detected at the end of the trial.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All scales were able to detect differences in the pain reported after dental treatment and may be valid and reliable for use in clinical dental practice. The NS, however, returns higher scores at baseline when assessing the pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":16649,"journal":{"name":"Journal of orofacial pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of orofacial pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the concordance among different pain scales for evaluation of pain in toothache patients and to assess the influence of oral health on the quality of life of those patients.

Methods: Ninety-two patients seeking treatment for toothache were evaluated before and after treatment. At baseline and 1 week after the dental treatment, the patients were requested to fill out the Oral Health Impact Profile Inventory (OHIP-14) as well as the following pain scales: the visual analog scale (VAS), numeric scale (NS), verbal rating scale (VRS), and Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R). The data were analyzed by Pearson correlation, Student t test, and analysis of variance for repeated measurements, with a significance level of 5%.

Results: Patients were, on average, 34.4 years old. The sample was composed of 50 women and 42 men. Fifty-eight patients had dental pain of pulpal origin, and 34 had pain of periodontal origin. The mean OHIP score was 20.83 at baseline and 5.0 at 1 week after the completion of the dental treatment. The mean values of the scales at baseline were 50.7 mm, 56.7 mm, 52.2 mm, and 52.9 mm for the VAS, NS, VRS, and FPS-R, respectively. One week after the treatment, these values were 7.5 mm, 9.4 mm, 10.9 mm, and 8.7 mm. A positive correlation was detected between all four scales at baseline and also 1 week after the treatment (P < .05). At baseline, the NS was significantly different from the other scales. This difference, however, was not detected at the end of the trial.

Conclusion: All scales were able to detect differences in the pain reported after dental treatment and may be valid and reliable for use in clinical dental practice. The NS, however, returns higher scores at baseline when assessing the pain.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
牙痛患者不同疼痛量表的一致性分析。
目的:评价牙痛患者不同疼痛量表的一致性,探讨口腔健康对牙痛患者生活质量的影响。方法:对92例牙痛患者进行治疗前后评价。在治疗开始时和治疗后1周,要求患者填写口腔健康影响量表(o嘻哈-14)以及以下疼痛量表:视觉模拟量表(VAS)、数字量表(NS)、言语评定量表(VRS)和面部疼痛量表-修订(FPS-R)。数据分析采用Pearson相关、Student t检验和重复测量方差分析,显著性水平为5%。结果:患者平均年龄34.4岁。样本由50名女性和42名男性组成。牙髓源性牙痛58例,牙周源性牙痛34例。基线时的平均OHIP评分为20.83,完成牙科治疗后1周的平均OHIP评分为5.0。基线时VAS、NS、VRS和FPS-R量表的平均值分别为50.7 mm、56.7 mm、52.2 mm和52.9 mm。治疗1周后分别为7.5 mm、9.4 mm、10.9 mm、8.7 mm。在基线和治疗后1周,所有四个量表之间均存在正相关(P < 0.05)。在基线时,NS与其他量表有显著差异。然而,在试验结束时并没有发现这种差异。结论:所有量表均能检测出治疗后疼痛报告的差异,在临床牙科实践中是有效和可靠的。然而,在评估疼痛时,NS给出的基线分数更高。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of orofacial pain
Journal of orofacial pain 医学-牙科与口腔外科
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Way forward Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating intraoral orthopedic appliances for temporomandibular disorders. Neuroplasticity in the adaptation to prosthodontic treatment. Temporomandibular disorder pain after whiplash trauma: a systematic review. Why seek treatment for temporomandibular disorder pain complaints? A study based on semi-structured interviews.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1