Tuija I. Suvinen

Review of aetiological concepts of temporomandibular pain disorders: towards a biopsychosocial model for integration of physical disorder factors with psychological and psychosocial illness impact factors

Several studies have reported that musculoskeletal disorders of the stomatognathic system, commonly known as temporomandibular disorders (TMD) resemble musculoskeletal disorders and chronic pain disorders in general. There is also general consensus that combined biomedical and biopsychosocial methods best support the assessment and management of the cardinal features of TMD, i.e., pain and dysfunction or physical (peripheral) and psychosocial (central) factors. This overview of the aetiology of TMD will outline conceptualizations of past models and present the current view that patients with TMD should be assessed according to both the physical disorder and the psychosocial illness impact factors. The conceptual theories outlined in this review include biomedical models related to temporomandibular joints, muscles of mastication and occlusal factors, psychological models and the biopsychosocial models. An integrated and multidimensional approach concerning physical and psychosocial factors in temporomandibular pain and dysfunction is presented as an example of how the biopsychosocial model and information processing theory may apply in the conceptualization and management of TMD for various health care professionals.

Temporomandibular joint related painless symptoms, orofacial pain, neck pain, headache, and psychosocial factors among non-patients

The aims of this study were to assess the prevalence of temporomandibular joint related (TMJ) painless symptoms, orofacial pain, neck pain, and headache in a Finnish working population and to evaluate the association of the symptoms with psychosocial factors. A self-administered postal questionnaire concerning items on demographic background, employment details, perceived general state of health, medication, psychosocial status, and use of health-care services, was mailed to all employees with at least 5 years at their current job. The questionnaire was completed by 1339 subjects (75%). Frequent (often or continual) TMJ-related painless symptoms were found in 10%, orofacial pain in 7%, neck pain in 39%, and headache in 15% of subjects. Females reported all pain symptoms significantly more often than men (P < 0.001). Frequent pain and TMJ-related symptoms were significantly associated with self-reported stress, depression, and somatization (P < 0.001). Perceived poor general state of health (P < 0.001), health care visits (P < 0.001), overload at work (P < 0.001), life satisfaction (P < 0.05), and work satisfaction (P < 0.05) were also significantly associated with pain symptoms, but the work duty was not (P > 0.05). Our findings are in accordance with earlier studies and confirm the strong relationship between neck pain, headache, orofacial pain, TMJ-related painless symptoms, and psychosocial factors. Furthermore, TMJ-related symptoms and painful conditions seem to be more associated with work-related psychosocial factors than with type of work itself.

Chronic myofascial pain, disk displacement with reduction and psychosocial factors in Finnish non‐patients

This study aimed to determine chronic groups of myofascial pain and chronic disk displacement with reduction over a 1‐year period, and to study the relationship between psychological status and these chronic subgroups of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) in non‐patients. A total of 211 subjects (males 47%, mean age 46 years; standard deviation 6) attended examinations in 1999 and 2000 performed according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD). Chronic myofascial pain was found in 7% and chronic disk displacement with reduction in 11% of subjects; new diagnoses were made in only 4% and 1% of the subjects, respectively. An increase in the level of somatization by 1 step increased the probability of having chronic myofascial pain by over 3 times (P = 0.006). Myofascial pain and disk displacement with reduction seem to be relatively common and fluctuating in nature in non‐patients. As somatization associated significantly with myofascial pain, this should be borne in mind in the management of TMD. The results strengthen the rationale of the biopsychosocial orientation in health care.

Subtyping patients with temporomandibular disorders in a primary health care setting on the basis of the research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders axis II pain-related disability: a step toward tailored treatment planning?

AIMS To use the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis II and additional pain-related and psychosocial variables to identify subtypes of TMD patients in a primary health care setting based on pain-related disability. METHODS Consecutive TMD pain patients (n = 399) seeking treatment in a primary care setting completed a multidimensional pain questionnaire. Subtyping was based on the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS), and the patients were divided into a no-disability group (0 disability points), lowdisability group (1-2 disability points), and high-disability group (3-6 disability points). Psychosocial variables included RDC/TMD Axis II variables, anxiety, tension and stress, worry, catastrophizing, coping ability, general health, and other pain problems. Subtype differences were analyzed with t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, ANOVA, or Kruskal-Wallis test. A further analysis with multivariable logistic model was applied. All P values from pairwise comparisons were Bonferroni adjusted. RESULTS Most (61%) of the patients belonged to the no-disability group, 27% to the low-disability group, and 12% to the high-disability group. When subtypes were compared, patients in the no-disability group appeared psychosocially well-functioning, with fewer symptoms related to psychosocial distress, better ability to control pain, and fewer jaw functional limitations and other pain problems. Patients in the high-disability group reported the highest levels of symptoms of depression and somatization, sleep dysfunction, worry, and catastrophizing thoughts. The low-disability patients formed an intermediate group between the no-disability and high-disability groups. CONCLUSION The results suggest that GCPS-related disability scoring can be used as a simple screening instrument in primary care settings to identify individuals with different, clinically relevant psychosocial subtypes.

Distinct biospychosocial profiles emerge among nonpatients

OBJECTIVES The cross-sectional study comprised 30- to 55-year-old permanent employees (N=1784) of the Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE). METHODS The participants (N=1339, response rate 75%) completed standardised questionnaires covering demographic items, physical health, work performance, stress symptoms, pain and musculoskeletal symptoms, and overall biopsychosocial health. RESULTS Physical symptoms (present often or continually) were reported by 15%, psychosomatic by 19% and psychosocial by 14%. The intercorrelations between 73 biopsychosocial variables revealed nine factors explaining 54.5% of variance for intrapersonal profiles and four factors explaining 59.2% of variance for interpersonal profiles. The Cronbach alphas for reliability ranged from.76 to.83. Three distinct biopsychosocial cluster profiles were found: Cluster 1 (n=290, 27%) loaded positively with the somatic and psychosocial variables, Cluster 2 (n=558, 51%) loaded negatively with the various biopsychosocial symptoms, and Cluster 3 (n=235, 22%) loaded positively with anxiety. CONCLUSION Discriminant function analysis confirmed that this cluster solution correctly classified 95.2% of the subjects in a nonpatient multiprofessional population, which supports the biopsychosocial approach also in work life issues.

Research Diagnostic Criteria Axis II in screening and as a part of biopsychosocial subtyping of Finnish patients with temporomandibular disorder pain.

AIMS To assess Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis II variables in an initial psychosocial screening and as a part of biopsychosocial subtyping of Finnish referral patients with TMD pain for adjunct multidisciplinary assessment. METHODS Consecutive Finnish referral patients with TMD pain (n = 135) participated in this questionnaire-based survey. Psychosocial screening was based on Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) and culturally adjusted Symptom Checklist 90-revised (SCL-90R) depression scale scores and subtyping on GCPS pain-related interference in accordance with previous treatment tailoring studies. Biopsychosocial subtyping variables included symptoms of depression and somatization, general health, pain-related worry, sleep dysfunction, and coping ability. Subtype comparisons were analyzed with Bonferroni adjusted P values and multivariable logistic regression (SAS 9.3). RESULTS Based on psychosocial screening, 44% of the patients were psychosocially uncompromised (TMD subtype 1), 33% moderately, and 23% severely compromised (TMD subtypes 2 and 3). Compared to TMD subtype 1, TMD subtype 2 patients reported intermediate scores, and the most vulnerable TMD subtype 3 had the poorest general health, most elevated depression, somatization, worry and sleep dysfunction, and poor coping ability (P < .05). According to multivariable logistic regression, depression and worry levels were significantly higher in TMD subtype 3 compared to TMD subtype 1, whilst patients in TMD subtypes 1 and 2 reported significantly better coping ability compared to TMD subtype 3 (P < .05). CONCLUSION The Finnish RDC/TMD Axis II was found reliable in initial TMD pain patient screening and with further biopsychosocial assessment identified three main TMD subtypes, two with compromised psychosocial profiles for adjunct multidisciplinary assessment.

Assessment of Pain Drawings and Self-Reported Comorbid Pains as Part of the Biopsychosocial Profiling of Temporomandibular Disorder Pain Patients

AIMS To assess drawings of pain sites and self-reported comorbid pains as a part of the biopsychosocial profiling of tertiary care referral patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain. METHODS A total of 135 consecutive patients referred to tertiary care for TMD pain participated. Patients drew all the sites where they had pain on whole-body pain drawings. Other assessments included self-reported comorbid pains in the head and body regions, the Finnish Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD_FIN Axis II), and additional biopsychosocial and treatment-related variables. Patients were grouped into pain drawing profiles (localized, regional, and widespread) and the associations between these profiles and the biopsychosocial variables were statistically evaluated using Bonferroni adjusted P values and with logistic regression using SAS 9.3. RESULTS A total of 21% of the patients reported localized TMD pain, 20% reported regional pain (headaches and neckaches), and the majority, 59%, reported widespread pain (local/regional and multiple bodily pain sites). Patients with widespread pain profiles formed a heterogenous group in which 28.2% reported severe and 30.8% reported moderate pain-related disability. The widespread pain patients reported significantly higher levels of depression and somatization, lower levels of general health, more sleep dysfunction, decreased ability to control pain, and greater health care needs compared to patients with localized pain (P < .05). Patients with regional pain profiles reported moderate scores on psychosocial functioning compared to the patients with localized or widespread pain. CONCLUSION The majority of tertiary care referral patients with TMD pain reported comorbid pains. Pain drawings were found a useful adjunctive tool for screening and as a part of comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment and treatment planning for patients with TMD pain.

Explanatory Models of Illness and Treatment Goals in Temporomandibular Disorder Pain Patients Reporting Different Levels of Pain-Related Disability.

AIMS To explore whether temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain patients reporting different levels of pain-related disability differ in terms of illness explanations and treatment expectations. METHODS Consecutive TMD pain patients (n = 399; mean ± SD age, 40.5 ± 12.7 years; 83% women) seeking treatment in primary care completed the Explanatory Model Scale (EMS). Patients were asked to indicate their expectations regarding the treatment. Each patients pain-related disability level was determined using the Graded Chronic Pain Scale, with scores indicating no (0 disability points), low (1-2 disability points), or high (3-6 disability points) disability. Differences between EMS factor scores were evaluated using the Mann-Whitney U test. Differences between study groups were analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS High-disability patients considered physical and stress factors as more important in causing and in aggravating pain and as targets of treatment compared with patients with no disability (P = .0196 and P = .0251, respectively). The great majority of patients indicated they would like to receive information, decrease pain, and increase jaw function, with no significant subtype differences noted. Compared with no-disability patients, low-disability and high-disability patients were more likely to expect increased ability to perform daily functions (P < .0001 in both comparisons), increased work ability (P < .0001 in both comparisons), and better stress management skills (P = .0014 and P = .0001, respectively). CONCLUSION Illness explanations and goals for treatment differ in patients reporting different levels of TMD pain-related disability.