Craniomandibular Disorders Clinical Trial
Official title:
ANALGESIC EFFECT OF CATHODAL TRANSCRANIAL CURRENT STIMULATION OVER RIGHT DORSOLATERAL PREFRONTAL CORTEX IN SUBJECTS WITH MUSCULAR TEMPOROMANDIBULAR DISORDERS: A Double Blind Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial
1. BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD) have become part of the daily routine of
all the health care professionals. Some studies have shown improvement in subjects with
chronic pain using neuromodulation. Chronic pain is involved with neuronal excitability
and the excitatory modulation is also being studied to treat chronic pain. Transcranial
direct current stimulation (tDCS) allows the neuronal membranes to be neuromodulated.
tDCS can enhance or inhibit the potential actions on the cortex. Studies with animals
has shown that anodal stimulation modulate the membrane in the way to depolarize which
results in a long term potential in the stimulated area.
2. PROBLEM: Most strategies for the treatment of TMDs are local and aim to treat directly
the cranial-facial muscles, applying kinesitherapy on Temporomandibular joint (TMJ)
and/or on the jaws and on the occlusion of teeth. Some drugs, such as tricyclic
antidepressants, that act in the CNS are used in these patients with positive results
in the beginning of the treatment. However, many patients after using these drugs in a
daily basis, are refractory to them and do not present an improvement in the pain
anymore or present several side-effects. Therefore, the investigators want to know if
tDCS over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) would have an analgesic effect when
reaching emotional areas.
3. HYPOTHESIS: The investigators believe that neuromodulation by tDCS over DLPFC would
decrease the anxiety level and consequently the muscular hyperactivity that is an
important etiological factor of TMD. For that, the masseter motor evoked potential
(MEP) will be used to verify any change.
4. AIM: To investigate if cathodal tDCS over right DLPFC has analgesic effects in subjects
with muscular TMD.
5. METHOD: The investigators will run a three-arm crossover double blind with 15 muscular
TMD subjects. The group treatments will be cathodal tDCS 1mA, cathodal tDCS 2mA and
Placebo. To verify selection criteria the investigators will use RDC/TMD, Visual
analogical scale (VAS) score from 4 to 10 for six months or longer, Inventory of
state-trit anxiety (ISTA) score more than 42. The outcomes will be VAS, sensory
testing, Electroencephalogram (EEG) and ISTA.
1. INTRODUCTION Pain is among the main complaints of most patients that seek care in a
hospital or a primary care unit. Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD) patients have become
part of the daily routine of all the health care professionals. Temporomandibular and
cranial-facial disorders are so prevalent that, since 1987, the International Headache
Society holds meetings to classify different types of pain associated with head. This
resulted in the publication of the Manual of Classification of Headaches - The
International Classification of Disorders Headache was revised in 2013.
There are different strategies to treat TMD patients, and the best is chosen depending
on the type of problem diagnosed or the most suitable strategy according to
professional experience. Strategies range from advice on lifestyle, psychotherapy,
containment of the jaw, kinesitherapy, ultrasound, TENS, muscle relaxants plates,
allopathic and homeopathic therapies and surgical interventions to the
temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Some of these techniques aim to treat the muscles,
others treat the dental occlusion or joint structures and there are those whose primary
focus is the psycho-emotional factors. As The TMDs are due to various factors of
muscular, joint, emotional, inflammatory, autoimmune or even infectious reasons, the
treatment should include different therapies during the rehabilitation process,
considering the best strategies for each patient. Literature has shown that the causes
of muscular origin are more prevalent in patients with this type of disorder). A
systematic review using studies with functional brain imaging, showed that, although
the majority of disorders are associated with muscle pain, this would be secondary to a
process triggered by the Central Nervous System (CNS). Following this theory, some
behavioral studies have shown that the TMD, almost always, are related to preexisting
psychopathology.
Chronic pain is involved with neuronal excitability. a study using transcranial
magnetic stimulation (TMS) found higher threshold in both sides of resting motor cortex
with lower up regulation responses. Furthermore they found lower responses in the
intracortical facilitation and inhibition.
The transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) allows the neuronal membranes to
neuromodulate and it can enhance or inhibit the potential actions on the cortex.
Studies with animals has shown that anodal stimulation modulate the membrane in the way
to depolarize which results in a long term potential in the stimulated area. Some
studies have shown improvement in subjects with fibromyalgia and chronic pain using
neuromodulation . Some authors suggest anodal tDCS over motor cortex to decrease pain
while modulating the activity in the neuronal networks responsible for pain, an example
of that is the thalamus. It also facilitates the descending inhibition of pain. However
few evidences support the efficacy of tDCS.
Another montage is tDCS over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). This area is
involved with anxiety and depression without direct analgesic effect. A study showed a
pain level decrease after tDCS over DLPFC in patients with emotional and affective
troubles. The authors suggested it based on emotional modulation by pain independent
networks by somatosensory pain perception. A study found anxiety modulation after tDCS
application over DLPFC using cathodal current on the right side and anodal on the left
side. This result is just a weak evidence that the tDCS anxiety effect, there is a
demand to investigate that approach.
Regarding the parameters the authors have suggested, 1 or 2mA, but the most common and
more used is 2 mA. There is a discussion about which milliamperage is more appropriate
when the investigators use cathodal current. A study verified the same results after
cathodal and anodal 2mA, both increased the motor evocated potential (MEP) whereas 1mA
cathodal current decreased the cortical excitability. Regarding the risks of side and
adverse effects a systematic review found just a few adverse effects such as itching,
tingling and mild headache that lingered after the stimuli was removed. The adverse
effects depend on the intensity and duration and usually the protocol recommends the
use of lower intensity (1 or 2mA) during short period of time of 20 or 30 minutes. A
questionnaire has been utilized to access these effects.
2. PROBLEM Most strategies for the treatment of TMDs are local and aim to treat directly
the cranial-facial muscles, applying kinesitherapy on TMJ and/or on the jaws and on the
occlusion. Some drugs, such as tricyclic antidepressants, that act in the CNS are used
in these patients with positive results in the beginning of the treatment. However,
many patients, after using these drugs in a daily basis, are refractory to them and do
not present an improvement in the pain anymore or present several side effects.
Therefore, the investigators want to know if tDCS over DLPFC would have an analgesic
effect when reaching emotional areas and if there are different results with different
amplitude.
3. HYPOTHESIS The investigators believe that neuromodulation by tDCS over DLPFC would
decrease the anxiety level and consequently the muscular hyperactivity that is an
important etiological factor of TMD. Using the motor evoked potential the investigators
will verify if changes will occur after 1mA and 2mA stimulation and if those changes
will be different when compared.
4. OBJECTIVES 4.1- GENERAL PURPOSE Investigate if cathodal tDCS over right DLPFC has
analgesic effects in subjects with muscular TMD.
4.2- SPECIFICS PURPOSES 1- Evaluate the tDCS effect regarding pain perception and
pressure threshold; 2- Evaluate if tDCS has any effect on anxiety and stress; 3-
Measure the masseter MEP pre and post tDCS; 4- Correlate pain intensity with anxiety
and masseter MEP pre and post tDCS; 5- Compare tDCS effects over pain intensity,
anxiety, stress and masseter MEP after apply different intensities (1mA/2mA).
5. BACKGROUND tDCS has shown promising results for the treatment of chronic pain in
several types of diseases, being a good and non-invasive alternative to treat pain in
TMD patients. Also, based on studies that showed changes in the brain activity of
chronic pain patients and on the difficulties faced to treat TMD, there is a need to
conduct clinical trials using new techniques, such as neuromodulation, to help these
patients to control their pain. Therefore, tDCS emerges as a new tool to be coupled
with other effective treatments already used for these patients. Furthermore, the
investigators think that there is a tie relationship between anxiety and muscular
hyperactivity but there is no evidence to say that tDCS over emotional areas can
decrease anxiety.
6. MATERIALS AND METHODS 6.1 Sample The IMMPACT (Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and
Pain Assessment in Clinical Trial) advises an effect size of 0.5 to treat pain disease.
Using this parameter from G*Power 3.1, with an 80% statistical power, alpha of 0.05,
measuring six measures of three intervention groups. Therefore a sample size of 15
subjects with muscular TMD will be utilized. Subjects are from database of Occlusion
and TMJ Center of Dentistry Faculty of Federal University of Bahia.
Randomization The subjects will be allocated consecutively to randomization as intervention
order using the tool from randomization.com website (Dallal GE,
http://www.randomization.com). The investigators will use the second generation suggested
for crossover studies.
6.2 Materials The materials are available on the budget table and the questionnaire is
annexed.
6.3 Data Collection Procedure All subjects will be treated using three different
interventions (groups I1, I2 e I3) respecting the washout period of 7 days to avoid residual
effects. The intervention order will be determined by randomization per group of
intervention.
After COAT institutional authorization, subjects will be contact by phone and asked if they
want to participate in the study. Those who wish to participate and qualify according to the
selection criteria after completing the pre-screening questionnaire will be scheduled after
reading and signing the consent form (2 copies). Women of chill-bearing potential will be
required to take a urine pregnancy test during screening process. If a subject becomes
pregnant during the course of the study, she will be withdrawn from the study. At the end of
the first appointment the subject will take a VAS and ISTA diary home to complete 7 days
before the baseline evaluation. The investigators will use the average of VAS and ISTA diary
to get the baseline values.
During the second visit, all clinical and neurological assessments will be performed before
and after tDCS stimulation. During the second visit (T2) clinical and neurological
assessments will be performed. The clinical assessments will be guided by RDC/TMD, pain and
anxiety diary and by sensory tests (Von Frey monofilaments and algometry/EMG system). The
neurophysiological assessment will be done using EEG to analyze cortical activity. Each
patient will be clinically and neurologically assessed before and after the stimulation,
allowing data to be collected 6 times (T2 to T7) and also at the first visit.
To group I1, the parameters used in the TDCS will be 1mA with cathodal over the right DLPFC
and anodal stimulation in the supraorbital contralateral area. With this chosen area the
investigators aim to reach cerebral regions responsible for anxiety. To group I2, the same
parameters will be used; however the current will be 2mA. The parameters to group I3, which
is the control group, will be the same as the active and the device in sham mode. To acquire
a placebo effect, the current will be used for the first 30 seconds and then reduced
gradually until zero in 20 seconds. This method has been shown effective in previous studies
and accepted by the academic community to blind subjects without any type of effects in the
cortical excitability.
The current will be applied using 35cm2 electrodes soaked in saline substance (140mMol de
NaCl water dissolved Mille-Q). The electrodes will be connected in the device driven by a 9v
batteries and will be regulated by a digital multimeter (EZA EZ 984, China) standard error
of ±1.5% (Montenegro et al., 2012).
All subjects will receive just one stimulation session for each type of intervention (I1,
I2, I3), totaling 3 sessions. After tDCS sessions the subject will answer an adverse effects
questionnaire. A trained researcher will do each procedure. A researcher responsible for the
general coordination (E.P.S.) will hold the randomization list and just the responsible for
the tDCS stimulation would know this information.
6.4 Study Variables Dependent: Visual Analogic Scale to pain, inventory of state-trit
anxiety, sensory testing, TMS and EEG.
Independent: Cathodal tDCS over DLPFC (1mA/2mA) and placebo treatment. 6.5 Data Analysis
Data will be recorded at an Excel 2010 sheet to be analyzed by a biostatistics professional
who will not have access to randomization process. To verify improvements after tDCS session
from each intervention group the investigators will use correlation test, post-hoc (to
multiples compare), a parametric one-way ANOVA if the data distributions are normal or
non-parametric if not normal and an intraclass concordance test. The difference among groups
will be analyzed by a multiple variance analysis (placebo vs. 1mA, Placebo vs. 2mA and 1mA
vs. 2mA) and p-value will be corrected to multiple compare (Bonferroni) to acquire a 0.05
significance level. All data will be analyzed by intention to treat.
;
Allocation: Randomized, Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study, Intervention Model: Crossover Assignment, Masking: Double Blind (Subject, Outcomes Assessor), Primary Purpose: Treatment
| Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Not yet recruiting |
NCT03421028 -
Evaluation of Biofeedback Therapy Efficiency in Masticatory Muscles Pain Management
|
N/A | |
| Completed |
NCT00154128 -
The Influence of a Stabilization Splint on the Body Posture
|
Phase 1 |