颅面深度疼痛敏感性评价方法的比较。

Journal of orofacial pain Pub Date : 2012-01-01
Simple Futarmal Kothari, Mohit Kothari, Lene Baad-Hansen, Peter Svensson
{"title":"颅面深度疼痛敏感性评价方法的比较。","authors":"Simple Futarmal Kothari,&nbsp;Mohit Kothari,&nbsp;Lene Baad-Hansen,&nbsp;Peter Svensson","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To determine whether a new palpometer and manual palpation can detect site-to-site differences in human craniofacial pain sensitivity in a similar pattern to that of an electronic pressure algometer and subsequently to compare between-session and within-session variability of palpometer and manual palpation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixteen volunteers participated. Experiment 1 was carried out in two sessions. In session 1, pressure pain thresholds (PPT) were determined with a pressure algometer at nine craniofacial sites. Manual palpation and the palpometer were then applied to all sites, and subjects scored perceived pressure/pain on a 0 to 100 numerical rating scale (NRS). Mean scores were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Ten of the volunteers were recalled for a second session and the same protocol was carried out except for assessment of PPTs to establish between-session variability. In experiment 2, three craniofacial sites were examined using the palpometer and manual palpation. Both techniques were repeated 10 times at each site and coefficient of variation (CV) was compared to determine within-session variability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences in NRS scores evoked by manual palpation or palpometer at any test site between repeated sessions. The CV varied between techniques, with lower within-session variability for the palpometer compared with manual palpation (P = .03).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The palpometer and manual palpation could detect differences in craniofacial sensitivity in healthy subjects, with no significant differences between repeated sessions. All techniques showed the highest sensitivity at the retromandibular site and the lowest at the temporalis muscle site. The palpometer had lower within-session variability compared with manual palpation.</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":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of techniques for evaluation of deep pain sensitivity in the craniofacial region.\",\"authors\":\"Simple Futarmal Kothari,&nbsp;Mohit Kothari,&nbsp;Lene Baad-Hansen,&nbsp;Peter Svensson\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To determine whether a new palpometer and manual palpation can detect site-to-site differences in human craniofacial pain sensitivity in a similar pattern to that of an electronic pressure algometer and subsequently to compare between-session and within-session variability of palpometer and manual palpation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixteen volunteers participated. Experiment 1 was carried out in two sessions. In session 1, pressure pain thresholds (PPT) were determined with a pressure algometer at nine craniofacial sites. Manual palpation and the palpometer were then applied to all sites, and subjects scored perceived pressure/pain on a 0 to 100 numerical rating scale (NRS). Mean scores were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Ten of the volunteers were recalled for a second session and the same protocol was carried out except for assessment of PPTs to establish between-session variability. In experiment 2, three craniofacial sites were examined using the palpometer and manual palpation. Both techniques were repeated 10 times at each site and coefficient of variation (CV) was compared to determine within-session variability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences in NRS scores evoked by manual palpation or palpometer at any test site between repeated sessions. The CV varied between techniques, with lower within-session variability for the palpometer compared with manual palpation (P = .03).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The palpometer and manual palpation could detect differences in craniofacial sensitivity in healthy subjects, with no significant differences between repeated sessions. All techniques showed the highest sensitivity at the retromandibular site and the lowest at the temporalis muscle site. The palpometer had lower within-session variability compared with manual palpation.</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}","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

摘要

目的:确定一种新的心电计和手动触诊是否能以类似于电子压力计的模式检测人类颅面疼痛敏感性的不同部位差异,并随后比较心电计和手动触诊的会话之间和会话内变异性。方法:16名志愿者参与。试验1分两期进行。在第1阶段,在颅面9个部位用压力测量仪测定压力疼痛阈值(PPT)。然后将手触诊和心电计应用于所有部位,并根据0到100的数值评定量表(NRS)对受试者感知的压力/疼痛进行评分。均分比较采用方差分析(ANOVA)。10名志愿者被召回参加第二次会议,并执行相同的方案,除了评估PPTs以确定会议之间的可变性。实验2分别用心电计和手触诊检查颅面3个部位。两种技术在每个位点重复10次,并比较变异系数(CV)以确定疗程内的变异性。结果:在重复疗程之间,手工触诊和心电在任何测试部位诱发的NRS评分均无显著差异。不同技术间的CV差异较大,与手动触诊相比,心压计的会话内变异性较低(P = .03)。结论:心电法和手触诊法可检测健康人颅面敏感性的差异,且重复次数之间无显著差异。所有技术均显示下颌后部位敏感度最高,颞肌部位敏感度最低。与人工触诊相比,心电计具有较低的会话内变异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of techniques for evaluation of deep pain sensitivity in the craniofacial region.

Aims: To determine whether a new palpometer and manual palpation can detect site-to-site differences in human craniofacial pain sensitivity in a similar pattern to that of an electronic pressure algometer and subsequently to compare between-session and within-session variability of palpometer and manual palpation.

Methods: Sixteen volunteers participated. Experiment 1 was carried out in two sessions. In session 1, pressure pain thresholds (PPT) were determined with a pressure algometer at nine craniofacial sites. Manual palpation and the palpometer were then applied to all sites, and subjects scored perceived pressure/pain on a 0 to 100 numerical rating scale (NRS). Mean scores were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Ten of the volunteers were recalled for a second session and the same protocol was carried out except for assessment of PPTs to establish between-session variability. In experiment 2, three craniofacial sites were examined using the palpometer and manual palpation. Both techniques were repeated 10 times at each site and coefficient of variation (CV) was compared to determine within-session variability.

Results: There were no significant differences in NRS scores evoked by manual palpation or palpometer at any test site between repeated sessions. The CV varied between techniques, with lower within-session variability for the palpometer compared with manual palpation (P = .03).

Conclusion: The palpometer and manual palpation could detect differences in craniofacial sensitivity in healthy subjects, with no significant differences between repeated sessions. All techniques showed the highest sensitivity at the retromandibular site and the lowest at the temporalis muscle site. The palpometer had lower within-session variability compared with manual palpation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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