Cargando…
Orofacial quantitative sensory testing: Current evidence and future perspectives
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Orofacial quantitative sensory testing (QST) is an increasingly valuable psychophysical tool for evaluating neurosensory disorders of the orofacial region. Here, we aimed to evaluate the current evidence regarding this testing method and to discuss its future clinical poten...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497080/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32557971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1611 |
_version_ | 1783583239902855168 |
---|---|
author | Van der Cruyssen, Fréderic Van Tieghem, Loes Croonenborghs, Tomas‐Marijn Baad‐Hansen, Lene Svensson, Peter Renton, Tara Jacobs, Reinhilde Politis, Constantinus De Laat, Antoon |
author_facet | Van der Cruyssen, Fréderic Van Tieghem, Loes Croonenborghs, Tomas‐Marijn Baad‐Hansen, Lene Svensson, Peter Renton, Tara Jacobs, Reinhilde Politis, Constantinus De Laat, Antoon |
author_sort | Van der Cruyssen, Fréderic |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Orofacial quantitative sensory testing (QST) is an increasingly valuable psychophysical tool for evaluating neurosensory disorders of the orofacial region. Here, we aimed to evaluate the current evidence regarding this testing method and to discuss its future clinical potential. DATA TREATMENT: We conducted a literature search in Medline, Embase and Scopus for English‐language articles published between 1990 and 2019. The utilized search terms included QST, quantitative, sensory testing and neurosensory, which were combined using the AND operator with the terms facial, orofacial, trigeminal, intraoral and oral. RESULTS: Our findings highlighted many methods for conducting QST—including method of levels, method of limits and mapping. Potential stimuli also vary, and can include mechanical or thermal stimulation, vibration or pinprick stimuli. Orofacial QST may be helpful in revealing disease pathways and can be used for patient stratification to validate the use of neurosensory profile‐specific treatment options. QST is reportedly reliable in longitudinal studies and is thus a candidate for measuring changes over time. One disadvantage of QST is the substantial time required; however, further methodological refinements and the combination of partial aspects of the full QST battery with other tests and imaging methods should result in improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, orofacial QST is a reliable testing method for diagnosing pathological neurosensory conditions and assessing normal neurosensory function. Despite the remaining challenges that hinder the use of QST for everyday clinical decisions and clinical trials, we expect that future improvements will allow its implementation in routine practice. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7497080 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74970802020-09-25 Orofacial quantitative sensory testing: Current evidence and future perspectives Van der Cruyssen, Fréderic Van Tieghem, Loes Croonenborghs, Tomas‐Marijn Baad‐Hansen, Lene Svensson, Peter Renton, Tara Jacobs, Reinhilde Politis, Constantinus De Laat, Antoon Eur J Pain Review Articles BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Orofacial quantitative sensory testing (QST) is an increasingly valuable psychophysical tool for evaluating neurosensory disorders of the orofacial region. Here, we aimed to evaluate the current evidence regarding this testing method and to discuss its future clinical potential. DATA TREATMENT: We conducted a literature search in Medline, Embase and Scopus for English‐language articles published between 1990 and 2019. The utilized search terms included QST, quantitative, sensory testing and neurosensory, which were combined using the AND operator with the terms facial, orofacial, trigeminal, intraoral and oral. RESULTS: Our findings highlighted many methods for conducting QST—including method of levels, method of limits and mapping. Potential stimuli also vary, and can include mechanical or thermal stimulation, vibration or pinprick stimuli. Orofacial QST may be helpful in revealing disease pathways and can be used for patient stratification to validate the use of neurosensory profile‐specific treatment options. QST is reportedly reliable in longitudinal studies and is thus a candidate for measuring changes over time. One disadvantage of QST is the substantial time required; however, further methodological refinements and the combination of partial aspects of the full QST battery with other tests and imaging methods should result in improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, orofacial QST is a reliable testing method for diagnosing pathological neurosensory conditions and assessing normal neurosensory function. Despite the remaining challenges that hinder the use of QST for everyday clinical decisions and clinical trials, we expect that future improvements will allow its implementation in routine practice. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-06-17 2020-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7497080/ /pubmed/32557971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1611 Text en © 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Pain published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Pain Federation EFIC ® This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Articles Van der Cruyssen, Fréderic Van Tieghem, Loes Croonenborghs, Tomas‐Marijn Baad‐Hansen, Lene Svensson, Peter Renton, Tara Jacobs, Reinhilde Politis, Constantinus De Laat, Antoon Orofacial quantitative sensory testing: Current evidence and future perspectives |
title | Orofacial quantitative sensory testing: Current evidence and future perspectives |
title_full | Orofacial quantitative sensory testing: Current evidence and future perspectives |
title_fullStr | Orofacial quantitative sensory testing: Current evidence and future perspectives |
title_full_unstemmed | Orofacial quantitative sensory testing: Current evidence and future perspectives |
title_short | Orofacial quantitative sensory testing: Current evidence and future perspectives |
title_sort | orofacial quantitative sensory testing: current evidence and future perspectives |
topic | Review Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497080/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32557971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1611 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vandercruyssenfrederic orofacialquantitativesensorytestingcurrentevidenceandfutureperspectives AT vantieghemloes orofacialquantitativesensorytestingcurrentevidenceandfutureperspectives AT croonenborghstomasmarijn orofacialquantitativesensorytestingcurrentevidenceandfutureperspectives AT baadhansenlene orofacialquantitativesensorytestingcurrentevidenceandfutureperspectives AT svenssonpeter orofacialquantitativesensorytestingcurrentevidenceandfutureperspectives AT rentontara orofacialquantitativesensorytestingcurrentevidenceandfutureperspectives AT jacobsreinhilde orofacialquantitativesensorytestingcurrentevidenceandfutureperspectives AT politisconstantinus orofacialquantitativesensorytestingcurrentevidenceandfutureperspectives AT delaatantoon orofacialquantitativesensorytestingcurrentevidenceandfutureperspectives |