Gary D Klasser’s research while affiliated with Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans and other places

Purpose of Review To provide an overview and highlight recent updates in temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and their comorbidity with headache disorders regarding pathophysiology and management. Recent Findings In the last decade, there have been great advancements in the understanding of TMDs and their relationship with neurovascular pains such as headaches. Understanding of TMDs is necessary for the context of its comorbidity with primary headache disorders. The literature regarding management of these comorbidities is scarce but points to combination therapy including pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches to optimize management. The use of CGRP receptor-targeted monoclonal antibodies or CGRP receptor antagonists should be explored for the management of chronic TMDs. It could also be used as a novel monotherapy or in combination with non-pharmacological approaches for TMDs’ comorbidity with headache, particularly migraine. Summary Research is needed to support evidence-based management protocols. A team involving neurology (headache medicine) and dentistry (orofacial pain) is critical for optimal management.

Objective: In line with a similar recent proposal for sleep bruxism (SB), defining clinically oriented research routes to implement knowledge on awake bruxism (AB) metrics is important for an enhanced comprehension of the full bruxism spectrum, i.e. better assessment and more efficient management. Methods: We summarised current strategies for AB assessment and proposed a research route for improving its metrics. Results: Most of the literature focuses on bruxism in general or SB in particular, whilst knowledge on AB is generally fragmental. Assessment can be based on non-instrumental or instrumental approaches. The former include self-report (questionnaires, oral history) and clinical examination, whilst the latter include electromyography (EMG) of jaw muscles during wakefulness as well as the technology-enhanced ecological momentary assesment (EMA). Phenotyping of different AB activities should be the target of a research task force. In the absence of available data on the frequency and intensity of wake-time bruxism-type masticatory muscle activity, any speculation about the identification of thresholds and criteria to identify bruxers is premature. Research routes in the field must focus on the improvement of data reliability and validity. Conclusions: Probing deeper into the study of AB metrics is a fundamental step to assist clinicians in preventing and managing the putative consequences at the individual level. The present manuscript proposes some possible research routes to advance current knowledge. At different levels, instrumentally-based and subject-based information must be gathered in a universally accepted standardized approach.

Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) encompass a number of different musculoskeletal disorders often accompanied by pain and dysfunction. Most TMDs are acute, but can become chronic leading to disability and quality of life issues. There is wide variation in treatment of TMDs, including both conservative/reversible therapies as well as invasive/irreversible treatments, which present difficulties for clinicians, patients, and third-party payers as to what constitutes appropriate care. Data sources: A recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine highlighted a number of deficiencies, most notably in the education of TMDs within United States of America dental schools at both the predoctoral and postdoctoral (dental) levels as well as addressing the historic inconsistencies in both diagnosis and treatment. New areas for research and interprofessional collaboration should assist in the understanding of TMDs, and updated clinical practice guidelines should help reduce variation in the delivery of evidence-based care. Recently, the American Dental Association recognized orofacial pain as a specialty, which should increase the level and availability of expertise in treating these issues. Summary: Based on the current best evidence, this report is an attempt to alert the profession to discontinue irreversible and invasive therapies for the vast majority of TMDs and recognize that the majority of these disorders are amenable to conservative, reversible interventions.

Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) encompass a number of different musculoskeletal disorders often accompanied by pain and dysfunction. Most TMDs are acute, but can become chronic leading to disability and quality of life issues. There is wide variation in treatment of TMDs, including both conservative/reversible therapies as well as invasive/irreversible treatments, which present difficulties for clinicians, patients, and third-party payers as to what constitutes appropriate care. Data sources: A recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine highlighted a number of deficiencies, most notably in the education of TMDs within United States of America dental schools at both the predoctoral and postdoctoral (dental) levels as well as addressing the historic inconsistencies in both diagnosis and treatment. New areas for research and interprofessional collaboration should assist in the understanding of TMDs, and updated clinical practice guidelines should help reduce variation in the delivery of evidence-based care. Recently, the American Dental Association recognized orofa-cial pain as a specialty, which should increase the level and availability of expertise in treating these issues. Summary: Based on the current best evidence, this report is an attempt to alert the profession to discontinue irreversible and invasive therapies for the vast majority of TMDs and recognize that the majority of these disorders are amenable to conservative, reversible interventions. (Quintessence Int 2023;54: 328-334; doi: 10.3290/j.qi.b3999673)

Dentists are subject to encountering cases involving orofacial pain unrelated to dental disease that may mimic common dental etiologies. Often, differential diagnosis can be made when classic symptoms of neuralgia are present, but diagnosis becomes more challenging with mixed and atypical symptoms. It is the goal of this article to describe cases of trigeminal neuralgia of various etiologies, which must be differentiated from pain of periodontal and/or pulpal origin in order to be effectively managed.

Background: Burning mouth disorder (BMD) is a complex medical condition characterized by a burning sensation in the mouth of fluctuating intensity. BMD is considered a diagnosis of exclusion, as oral burning can occur secondary to local or systemic conditions. Parkinson's disease (PD) is one such condition. Objective: To provide a scoping review of the literature by assessing all articles written in English that investigated the relationship between BMD and PD. Materials and methods: Various databases (Pubmed, Ovid, Web of Science, Science Direct and Scopus) and a search platform (EbscoHost) were searched following similar investigative approaches. Duplicates were removed and reference lists of original studies were scrutinized for additional articles. Any decision about the inclusion/exclusion in the review was by consensus among the co-authors. Results: Twenty-five original articles and 1 supplemental article were included in the final review, of which 13 met the inclusion criteria. These were further divided into 5 categories based on the study design/article, which included Prevalence studies (n=6), Letter to the editor (n=1), Incidence study (n=1), Case reports (n=2) and Experimental studies (n=3). Strongest data was provided by epidemiological studies, which suggest BMD and PD are poorly associated. Conclusions: A scoping review of the existing literature does not suggest that PD patients are any more at risk of developing BMD compared to the general population. Whilst there may be a link through the dopaminergic system as determined by imaging studies, it is unlikely the pathogenesis of PD disease shares significant commonality with BMD.

Designing classification systems and developing diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders is difficult. An appreciation of the utility and applicability of these entities requires an understanding of the importance of each, the differences between the two, and how they may be optimally operationalized for both clinical and research activities in light of their inherent advantages and limitations. In addition, consideration for adopting newer approaches, such as following ontological and precision-based medicine principles, accounting for genetics/epigenetic and neurobiological factors, and the inclusion of biomarkers will potentially result in more thorough and comprehensive classification systems and diagnostic criteria.

Objective This paper aims to present and describe the Standardised Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB), an instrument that was developed to provide a multidimensional evaluation of bruxism status, comorbid conditions, aetiology and consequences. Methods The rationale for creating the tool and the road map that led to the selection of items included in the STAB has been discussed in previous publications. Results The tool consists of two axes, specifically dedicated to the evaluation of bruxism status and consequences (Axis A) and of bruxism risk and etiological factors and comorbid conditions (Axis B). The tool includes 14 domains, accounting for a total of 66 items. Axis A includes the self‐reported information on bruxism status and possible consequences (subject‐based report) together with the clinical (examiner report) and instrumental (technology report) assessment. The Subject‐Based Assessment (SBA) includes domains on Sleep Bruxism (A1), Awake Bruxism (A2) and Patient's Complaints (A3), with information based on patients' self‐report. The Clinically Based Assessment (CBA) includes domains on Joints and Muscles (A4), Intra‐ and Extra‐Oral Tissues (A5) and Teeth and Restorations (A6), based on information collected by an examiner. The Instrumentally Based Assessment (IBA) includes domains on Sleep Bruxism (A7), Awake Bruxism (A8) and the use of Additional Instruments (A9), based on the information gathered with the use of technological devices. Axis B includes the self‐reported information (subject‐based report) on factors and conditions that may have an etiological or comorbid association with bruxism. It includes domains on Psychosocial Assessment (B1), Concurrent Sleep‐related Conditions Assessment (B2), Concurrent Non‐Sleep Conditions Assessment (B3), Prescribed Medications and Use of Substances Assessment (B4) and Additional Factors Assessment (B5). As a rule, whenever possible, existing instruments, either in full or partial form (i.e. specific subscales), are included. A user's guide for scoring the different items is also provided to ease administration. Conclusions The instrument is now ready for on‐field testing and further refinement. It can be anticipated that it will help in collecting data on bruxism in such a comprehensive way to have an impact on several clinical and research fields.