Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31236734›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2020

Feasibility and reliability of intraorally evoked "nociceptive-specific" blink reflexes.

Rajath Sasidharan Pillai, Cung May Thai, Laura Zweers, Michail Koutris, Frank Lobbezoo, Yuri Martins Costa, Maria Pigg, Thomas List, Peter Svensson, Lene Baad-Hansen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. The blink reflex and its modulation - Part 1: Physiological mechanisms.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Rajath Sasidharan PillaiSection for Orofacial Pain and Jaw Function, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Vennelyst Boulevard 9, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. raj.pillai@dent.au.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1154-660X
Cung May ThaiDepartment of Orofacial Pain and Dysfunction, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Laura ZweersDepartment of Orofacial Pain and Dysfunction, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michail KoutrisDepartment of Orofacial Pain and Dysfunction, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Frank LobbezooDepartment of Orofacial Pain and Dysfunction, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Yuri Martins CostaDepartment of Physiological Sciences, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Brazil.
Maria PiggScandinavian Center for Orofacial Neurosciences (SCON), Aarhus, Denmark.
Thomas ListScandinavian Center for Orofacial Neurosciences (SCON), Aarhus, Denmark.
Peter SvenssonSection for Orofacial Pain and Jaw Function, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Vennelyst Boulevard 9, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Lene Baad-HansenSection for Orofacial Pain and Jaw Function, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Vennelyst Boulevard 9, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.

Funding

Tandlægeforeningen NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe "nociceptive-specific" blink reflex (nBR) evoked by extraoral stimulation has been used to assess trigeminal nociceptive processing in patients with trigeminal nerve damage regardless of the site of damage. This study aimed to test the feasibility of nBR elicited by intraoral stimulation, compare intraoral and extraoral nBR and assess the intrarater and interrater reliability of the intraoral nBR for the maxillary (V2) and mandibular (V3) branches of the trigeminal nerve. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn 17 healthy participants, nBR was elicited by stimulation of two extraoral and two intraoral sites by two operators and repeated intraorally by one operator. Main outcome variables were intraoral stimulus-evoked pain scores and nBR R2 responses at different stimulus intensities. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess reliability.

resultsDependent on the stimulus intensity, intraoral stimulation evoked R2 responses in up to 12/17 (70.6%) participants for V2 and up to 8/17 (47.1%) participants for V3. Pain scores (p < 0.003) and R2 responses (p < 0.004) increased with increasing intensities for V2, but not V3. The R2 responses were significantly smaller with intraoral stimulation compared to extraoral stimulation (p < 0.014). Overall, ICCs were fair to excellent for V2 but poor for V3.

conclusionIntraorally evoked nBR was feasible in a subset of healthy participants and was less responsive than nBR with extraoral stimulation. The V2 nBR showed better reliability than V3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The nBR can be used to assess nerve damage to the maxillary intraoral regions, though other measures may need to be considered for the mandibular intraoral regions.

Indexed as

BlinkingReflexElectric StimulationFeasibility StudiesHumansReproducibility of ResultsIntraoralNociceptive blink reflexReliabilityTrigeminal nerve

Identifiers

PMID31236734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.