ArticleEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2021
Pressure pain threshold of masticatory muscles in children and adolescents with and without intellectual disability: a pilot study.
Article in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pain Behavior of People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Coded with the New PAIC-15 and Validation of Its Arabic Translation.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Effect of Social Support in Pain Sensitivity in Children with Cerebral Palsy and Typically Developing Children.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Paediatricians' Views on Pain in Children with Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities.Brain sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposePain is considered a stressful experience, related to real or possible tissue damage with emotional, sensory, social and cognitive components. The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare, using a digital algometer, the pressure pain threshold of temporal and masseter muscles of children and adolescents with and without intellectual disability.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted. Data regarding gender and age were collected from the caregiver of children and adolescents with and without intellectual disability. The evaluations followed this sequence: pressure pain threshold of the masseter and temporal muscles, evaluation of pain on touch using the visual analog scale and signs and symptoms of Temporomandibular disorder. The χ
resultsTwo homogeneous groups by gender (P = 0.258) and age (P = 0.727) were evaluated, of which 25 children and adolescents presented intellectual disability and another 25 did not have intellectual disability. No significant difference was observed between groups on the pressure pain threshold of the masseter and temporal muscles, nor pressure average or exam time (P > 0.05). Regarding Temporomandibular dysfunction, no difference in signs or symptoms frequency was found (P > 0.05). However, the range of maximum mouth opening was smaller in the intellectual disability group (P = 0.006).
conclusionChildren and adolescents with intellectual disability and preserved basic functionalities do not present alterations in pain perception when evaluated with computerized pressure algometer and visual analog scale. They present similar threshold of pain to pressure as those reported by normative children and adolescents. These results emphasize the importance to treat these children and adolescents with intellectual disability with respect to their pain threshold.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.