search for




 

Clinical Features of the Persistent Idiopathic Dentoalveolar Pain Compared with Inflammatory Dental Pain
J Oral Med Pain 2022;47:87-94
Published online June 30, 2022;  https://doi.org/10.14476/jomp.2022.47.2.87
© 2022 Korean Academy of Orofacial Pain and Oral Medicine

Ji Hee Jang1, Jin Woo Chung1,2

1Department of Oral Medicine, Seoul National University Dental Hospital, Seoul, Korea
2Department of Oral Medicine and Oral Diagnosis, School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
Correspondence to: Jin Woo Chung
Department of Oral Medicine and Oral Diagnosis, School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Korea
Tel: +82-2-2072-3021
E-mail: jwchung@snu.ac.kr
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3738-3386

This study was supported by grant (no. 04-2016-0084) from the Seoul National University Dental Hospital Research Fund.
Received June 21, 2022; Revised June 22, 2022; Accepted June 22, 2022.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the differences between clinical and quantitative sensory testing (QST) results among persistent idiopathic dentoalveolar pain (PIDP), inflammatory dental pain, and control group subjects to identify discriminative clinical features for differential diagnosis.
Methods: Thirty-three patients (5 PIDP-a without surgical procedures 10 PIDP-b with surgical procedures, 8 dental pain patients, and 10 controls) were evaluated for clinical features and QST results. Cold pain threshold, heat pain threshold, mechanical pain threshold (MPT), mechanical pain sensitivity, and pressure pain threshold (PPT) were performed. Psychological factors were assessed using Symptom Checklist-90-Revision (SCL-90-R) and a chart review was conducted to evaluate additional discriminative clinical features such as pain quality and treatment prognosis.
Results: The dental pain group had lower PPT than the PIDP-b and the control group. The PIDP-a group showed higher MPT and PPT than the PIDP-b and dental pain group but the difference was not statistically significant. Differences in SCL-90-R SOM (Somatization), O-C (obsessive-compulsive), ANX (anxiety), and PSY (Psychoticism) values were statistically significant among groups. PIDP-a and PIDP-b groups showed remaining symptoms after treatment and the pain tended to spread widely, whereas, in toothache patients, symptoms disappeared after treatment. However, factors that confound the diagnosis, such as an increase in pain during chewing and a decrease in the pain threshold at the affected site, could also be identified.
Conclusions: PIDP and dental pain groups have distinct clinical symptoms, but there are also factors that cause confusing in diagnosis. Therefore, various clinical examination results should be carefully reviewed and comprehensively evaluated in the differential diagnosis process.
Keywords : Diagnosis, differential; Pain threshold; Prognosis; Quantitative sensory testing; Somatosensory disorders; Toothache
INTRODUCTION

Persistent idiopathic dentoalveolar pain (PIDP) was previously termed atypical odontalgia, persistent dentoalveolar pain disorder, and phantom toothache [1]. In the International Classification of Orofacial Pain (ICOP), it is defined as dentoalveolar area pain lasting more than three months without a specific preceding cause [2]. As mentioned in the definition of PIDP, diagnosis is difficult due to complains of pain without any clear objective signs, and there is a risk of irreversible treatment such as root canal treatment (RCT) and extraction due to misdiagnosis. Therefore, when diagnosing a patient complaining of a toothache, it is very important to differentiate between odontogenic and non-odontogenic pain, but there is no clear gold standard for differential diagnosis yet [3].

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) evaluates the functions of A-beta, A-delta, and C fibers using temperature, mechanical, vibrational, pressure, electrical, and chemical stimulation to quantitatively identify somatosensory changes [4]. In the past, there were various measures and evaluation criteria, but the German Research Network on Neuropathic pain developed a standardized method [5]. The characteristics of somatosensory changes in patients with various types of neuropathic pain were evaluated using QST, and the results are also used for diagnosis and treatment effect evaluation by estimating the underlying mechanism, phenotyping, or classification of diseases. Research included those of the orofacial area including PIDP and burning mouth syndrome (BMS) [6-8]. However, variations in QST measures depending on the subject are the most significant disadvantage [9]. Abnormal findings are observed even in the normal control group, or normal results are sometimes observed in PIDP patients [6,10]. Therefore, in ICOP, the subtype of PIDP is divided into with or without somatosensory change [2]. So, QST cannot be used as a definite tool for differential diagnosis of PIDP and caution is required in interpreting examination results.

The mechanism of PIDP is still unclear and it is explained that it may occur due to micro nerve damage and deafferentation through surgical procedures such as RCT or extraction [3,11]. However, some cases of PIDPs lack precedent procedures. There could be a distinguishable difference between the two subjects according to the presence of micro nerve damage and this difference may be a feature that can be detected before irreversible treatment.

Therefore, in this study, the differential diagnosis factors were identified by comparing the clinical characteristics and QST results of PIDP and inflammatory dental pain patients, and assessed whether surgical procedure experience affects clinical characteristics and QST by dividing into PIDP groups depending on surgical procedures history.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Subjects

This study was conducted on patients who came to Seoul National University Dental Hospital for treatment with dentoalveolar pain and normal controls recruited for the study who provided consent. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Dental Hospital (SNUDH) (#CRI17001). Of a total of 35 patients (5 PIDP without surgical procedure, 10 PIDP with surgical procedure, 10 dental pain, and 10 control), 2 patients with dental pain were excluded because they were lost at follow-up and a total of 33 patients were analyzed.

PIDP was defined as a patient with persistent pain in the dentoalveolar area for more than 3 months without specific signs according to the ICOP definition. Among them, the group with no experience in surgical procedures such as RCT or extraction was designated as PIDP-a, and the group with experience in surgical procedures was designated as PIDP-b. A patient with dental pain was defined as a patient with pain due to the findings of inflammation in the pupal, periodontal, and gingiva areas by ICOP classifications. For accuracy of diagnosis, subjects of this group were limited to those with objective findings such as periapical lesions confirmed on imaging tests. At this time, subjects with traumatic events such as root fractures were excluded. Healthy controls were recruited who had no pain in the orofacial area, including teeth, for the past 6 months. Common exclusion criteria for all three groups were other neuropathic pain (such as BMS, polyneuropathy), oral mucosal lesion (such as oral lichen planus), uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, and moderate to severe psychological disorders.

2. Psychological Assessment and Chart Review

Symptomatic checklist-90-revision (SCL-90-R) test was conducted and a chart review was performed retrospectively to evaluate the clinical features of the patient. The patient’s pain characteristics (pain intensity, quality, duration), treatment method, prognosis, consultation with other departments, and treatment experience before visiting SNUDH was recorded.

3. Quantitative Sensory Testing

Nociceptive stimuli of temperature, mechanical, and pressure were applied to the subjects, and the results were recorded. TSA 2001-II (MEDOC, Ramat Yishai, Israel) with an intraoral probe (6-mm diameter) was used to measure cold pain threshold (cold temperature at first perceived pain) and heat pain threshold (hot temperature at first perceived pain). Mechanical pain threshold (MPT) and mechanical pain sensitivity (MPS) used Semmes–Weinstein Von Frey filament (Touch-Test Sensory Evaluator Kit; North Coast Medical Inc., Gilroy, CA, USA), and MPT recorded the intensity of the filament that perceived pain at the time of stimulation. MPS applied Semmes–Weinstein Von Frey filament (Touch Test® Sensory Evaluator) 1.0, 1.4, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 26, 60, 100, 180, and 300 g probes, and then the numeric rating scale (NRS) values were recorded upon stimulation. The pressure pain threshold (PPT) recorded the intensity at which the subject first perceived pain during pressure stimulation using electronic pressure algometer with a 1-cm2 probe (Somedic, Hörby, Sweden).

4. Statistical Analysis

The Mann–Whitney U, Kruskal–Wallis, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed to compare the clinical features and QST data. Statistically significant was defined as a p-value less than 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed with the SPSS 19.0 software program (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 33 subjects (5 PIDP-a, 10 PIDP-b, 8 dental pain, 10 control) were tested in this study. Majority (81.8%) of the subjects were women, and average age was 42.7±10.3 years (Table 1).


In SCL-90-R analysis, statistical significance was observed in differences of somatization (SOM), obsessive-compulsive (O-C), depression (DEP), anxiety (ANX), and psychoticism (PSY) scores between groups (Table 2). In the post hoc test, SOM between PIDP-a and control, OC between PIDP-a and dental pain, dental pain and control, DEP and ANX between PIDP-b and control, dental pain and control, PSY between PIDP-a and control, dental pain and the control group showed a significant difference.


In QST analysis, comparison of the affected and unaffected sites was performed within the PIDP and dental pain group, respectively, and then comparative analysis was performed between the PIDP and dental pain and control groups. In the intragroup comparison, there were significant differences in MPS for PIDP, MPT, and PPT for dental pain. In the between-group (patient affected site and control group) comparison, there were significant differences in PPT (Table 3). Through post hoc testing, significance was shown in the control-dental pain group and PIDP-b-dental pain groups.


Pain duration (time from onset of pain to first visit to SNUDH), number of hospitals or departments visited before SNUDH, changes in NRS post-treatment, symptoms including pain characteristics and imaging test results, pain aggravating factors, accompanying symptoms, treatment methods, and prognosis were recorded (Table 4). Pain duration was observed similarly in all three patient groups, but the number of hospitals visited in PIDP groups was more than dental pain group, and NRS was observed to be higher than dental pain group. Another clinical difference between the PIDP patient and the dental pain group was observed during the follow-up period, these were the presence or absence of accompanying symptoms and the repeatability of symptoms after treatment. In dental pain group, increased symptoms and additional accompanying symptoms were not observed during the follow-up period after appropriate treatment. On the other hand, in the PIDP group, there was a repeated relief and exacerbation of symptoms even during medication. In addition, and as a comorbidity symptom, pain in the various areas (such as orofacial, head, ear, eye, nose, and uvula) and multiple toothaches were observed in follow-up period. While the main treatment methods for the dental pain group were surgical procedures such as RCT and extraction, the PIDP group mainly received medication. However, most of the PIDP and dental pain groups had experience taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain relief. And to minimize the medication effect on QST results, in PIDP group, they were composed of those who had no experience in taking them or had taken it within one week in the case of anti-depressant and anti-convulsant.

DISCUSSION

Through this study, it was confirmed that PIDP and dental pain patients had various clinical differences, including prognosis, and significantly different items were found between groups in QST and SCL-90-R. However, due to the small sample size, caution is required in interpreting the results clinically.

In general, fear, anxiety, and depression are observed in pain patients [12-14], and in this study also, increased levels of depression and anxiety were observed with statistically significantly higher scores in the PIDP-b and dental pain groups compared to the control group. However, there was no significant difference among patient groups. So, it is somewhat insufficient for clinical use in differential diagnosis. The SCL-90-R T-score of the PIDP-a group has an overall lower average compared to the control group. Whether it is a characteristic of the subjects constructed in this study or a general characteristic of the PIDP-a group should be confirmed through future research.

The QST results showed significant differences in PPT in the comparison of the patient-affected sites and control group, and a significant difference was observed in the PIDP-b and dental pain groups in post-hoc test. In addition, in the dental pain group, a significant difference between MPT and PPT affected-unaffected sites was observed, whereas this change was not observed in the PIDP group. However, the MPT distribution tendency of PIDP-a and PIDP-b showed in Table 3 and Fig. 1 is slightly different, and also other items. As for the MPT observed in the PIDP-b group, lower values ​​were observed in both sites compared to other groups, these results could be explained by the decreased threshold for mechanical nociceptive stimuli and central sensitization phenomenon maintaining a low value even at the unaffected site which is in line with a previous study [6,15]. However, in the PIDP-a group, MPT and PPT showed a tendency to be higher than those of other patient groups. Regarding these results, we need to consider whether 1) the threshold of the PIDP group without surgical procedures is observed to be higher than the group that had surgical procedure for mechanical and pressure nociceptive stimuli; or 2) it is strongly influenced by individual variations. If there is a threshold difference it is necessary to reinforce and confirm whether the difference in micro nerve damage caused by the surgical procedure affects QST and also if individual variation is a limitation of QST [16]. Of course, there is no statistical significance, caution is needed in interpreting these results. Also, the fact that PPT showed differences between PIDP-b and dental pain groups confirmed the possibility of a simple, usable item in clinical diagnosis. However, the characteristic that QST results should be interpreted together with other clinical information and the absence of a critical point that enables differentiation between PIDP-dental pain groups suggests that there are still many difficulties in using QST alone for differential diagnosis. Also, in this study, standard normalization of the QST data was not satisfied due to the small sample size, and therefore the z-score, which is a prerequisite for standard normalization, could not be calculated. For this reason, it was difficult to directly confirm QST abnormality. Because QST is a test with psychophysical characteristics, it is affected by the subject’s condition. Therefore, it is affected not only by the subject’s factors such as age and gender but also by periodic changes such as circadian rhythm and menstruation cycle [17,18]. However, this study did not control for these confounding factors. Therefore, the inability to present a z-score, and the failure to consider these confounding factors are limitations of this study.


Through a retrospective chart review other clinical features that can distinguish the two study groups were investigated (Table 4). In general, in PIDP, changes such as central sensitization and neuroplastic change and also, it would take a long time from the time of pain onset to first visiting the hospital could be expected [19,20]. However, as shown in Table 4, there was no significant difference in the mean pain duration among groups. This may be explained that inflammatory dental pain patients visited the hospital late, and it did not take longer than expected for chronic pain accompanied by neuroplastic change to occur [21]. Therefore, if the diagnosis is accurate, it is necessary to start treatment as soon as possible. However, in PIDP patients, because the exact cause of pain cannot be found, the treatment process is often delayed [22]. The average number of visiting hospitals or other departments are higher in PIDP patients than dental pain patients which is evidence of a delayed treatment process. Usually, dental pain patients went through 0 to 1 hospital visits and received treatment right away, whereas PIDP patients usually went through 2 to 4 hospitals visits. And because PIDP pain characteristics are similar to neuropathic pain in the oral and maxillofacial area, they went through other departments including neurology, otolaryngology, and pain medicine.

Pain characteristics are shown in Table 4. Itching and burning sensations were the characteristic expressions distinguishing inflammatory dental pain. However, patients with dental pain also complain of prickling, electric pain in a state in which the pain threshold is reduced due to the inflammatory process, and in patients with PIDP, it is also said that the pain worsens when chewing and stimulating the teeth. Therefore, these clinical features can confound diagnosis, and these parts must be thoroughly reviewed in the diagnosis process.

During the post-treatment process, a clear difference could be observed between the groups. First, in patients with dental pain, pain is hardly observed when appropriate treatment is completed through RCT, extraction, or implant installation and no increase in pain was observed during the additional follow-up period. What is noteworthy here is that although dental pain patients who have not been treated for a long time experience mild pain, the change to PIDP symptoms is not observed in inflammatory dental pain patients. However, in the case of PIDP patients, even if drug treatment is effective, some symptoms often remain, and symptom relief and exacerbation appear repeatedly. In addition, more severe the remission or exacerbation of symptoms, the pain area spreaded from the dentoalveolar area to the oral and maxillofacial area, and the accompanying symptoms increased.

Therefore, it is thought that additional research is needed on the process of gradual changing from PIDP to persistent idiopathic facial pain through neuroplastic change, convergence, and central sensitization processes. Further studies are also needed to investigate the differences in mechanism between PIDP and inflammatory dental pain patients – with inflammatory toothache who have not been treated for a long time or the dental pain group that does not transition to PIDP after tooth extraction or RCT.

In conclusion, PIDP and inflammatory dental pain patients have distinct clinical characteristics, including QST results but also have similar clinical factors that confound diagnosis. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive evaluation using various clinical examinations and symptoms should be thoroughly reviewed at the time of diagnosis. And, in this study, some QST results showed different tendencies depending on whether or not a surgical procedure is performed, even though symptoms and prognosis are similar in the PIDP groups. However, since the sample size is small, further research is needed in the future to generalize about this.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures
Fig. 1. Distribution of the cold pain threshold (CPT), heat pain threshold (HPT), mechanical pain threshold (MPT), mechanical pain sensitivity (MPS) (numeric rating scale 0-100) and pressure pain threshold (PPT). PIDP-a, persistent idiopathic dentoalveolar pain without surgical procedures; PIDP-b, persistent idiopathic dentoalveolar pain with surgical procedures.
Tables

Distribution of gender and age

Variable Group

PIDP-a (n=5) PIDP-b (n=10) Dental pain (n=8) Control (n=10) p-value
Gender, women (%) 80.0 (n=4/5) 90.0 (n=9/10) 62.5 (n=5/8) 18.5 (n=9/10) 0.472a
Age (y) (mean±standard deviation) 42.4±13.3 43.3±9.4 40.9±12.6 43.5±10.1 0.989b

PIDP-a, persistent idiopathic dentoalveolar pain without surgical procedures; PIDP-b, persistent idiopathic dentoalveolar pain with surgical procedures.

ap-values were obtained from Fisher’s exact test.

bp-values were obtained from Kruskal–Wallis test.

p-value was considered as significant when p-value<0.05.

Comparisons of Symptom Checklist-90-Revision results

Variable PIDP-a PIDP-b Dental pain Control p-value
SOM 40.6±5.0 48.9±9.5 45.0±7.2 38.6±2.0 0.007*
O-C 36.6±6.4 45.6±10.8 46.9±7.6 39.6±3.9 0.040*
I-S 40.2±7.3 46.5±10.4 46.6±6.5 40.6±7.2 0.134
DEP 38.2±6.4 46.7±9.4 47.9±10.7 39.1±3.1 0.019*
ANX 39.0±5.3 46.1±11.5 44.6±8.4 37.7±2.6 0.033*
HOS 40.4±2.5 46.9±11.9 46.5±10.0 41.1±2.5 0.287
PHOB 42.6±4.3 46.9±11.0 44.6±3.1 42.0±3.5 0.314
PAR 41.2±4.1 45.2±12.7 44.6±6.1 40.6±3.1 0.402
PSY 39.6±1.8 47.4±11.8 44.9±4.3 39.7±3.3 0.028*

PIDP-a, persistent idiopathic dentoalveolar pain without surgical procedures; PIDP-b, persistent idiopathic dentoalveolar pain with surgical procedures; SOM, somatization; O-C, obsessive-compulsive; I-S, interpersonal-sensitivity; DEP, depression; ANX, anxiety; HOS, hostility; PHOB, phobic anxiety; PAR, paranoid ideation; PSY, psychoticism.

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

p-values were obtained from Kruskal–Wallis test.

*p-value was considered as significant when p-value<0.05.

Comparisons of quantitative stimulating test results related to pain stimulation

Variable PIDP-a (n=5) PIDP-b (n=10) Dental pain (n=8) Control (n=10) p-valuec



Affected Unaffected p-valuea Affected Unaffected p-valuea Affected Unaffected p-valueb
CPT (℃) 13.9±5.5 13.2±6.8 0.500 17.2±4.7 12.6±5.6 0.093 15.0±42 16.3±6.3 0.237 13.4±6.4 0.465
HPT (℃) 47.7±4.4 48.0±4.8 0.686 47.1±5.8 50.6±1.9 0.314 50.1±2.6 48.8±3.8 0.310 49.0±3.7 0.608
MPT (g) 55.4±71.4 106.0±89.1 0.715 33.3±41.9 42.0±42.3 0.221 31.2±22.2 65.7±70.1 0.028* 76.7±70.9 0.131
MPS 25.3±15.4 16.6±16.9 0.066 25.5±19.2 20.1±18.5 0.017* 20.6±17.4 16.4±19.5 0.161 11.7±13.7 0.148
PPT (kPa) 56.5±39.8 92.8±51.9 0.275 53.4±17.7 82.7±89.9 0.646 24.4±10 33.9±8.9 0.049* 65.7±51.8 0.028*

PIDP-a, persistent idiopathic dentoalveolar pain without surgical procedures; PIDP-b, persistent idiopathic dentoalveolar pain with surgical procedures; CPT, cold pain threshold; HPT, heat pain threshold; MPT, mechanical pain threshold; MPS, mechanical pain sensitivity (numeric rating scale 0-100); PPT, pressure pain threshold.

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

ap-values were obtained from Wilcoxon signed rank test between affected and unaffected sites in the PIDP group.

bp-values were obtained from Wilcoxon signed rank test between affected and unaffected sites in the dental pain group.

cp-values were obtained from Kruskal–Wallis test between among PIDP, dental pain and control groups.

*p-value was considered as significant when p-value<0.05.

Comparisons of clinical features

Variable PIDP-a PIDP-b Dental pain
Pain duration (mo, min-max) 9.6±5.7 (3.0-18.0) 11.4±9.2 (3.0-24.0) 10.9±20.3 (0.2-60.0)
Number of hospitals or departments visited before coming to SNUDH 3.4±0.5 (3-4)
※Due to not finding the cause of the pain
2.6±0.8 (1-4)
※Due to not finding the cause of the pain
0.5±1.2 (0-1)
※Due to the high difficulty of treatment
Department with treatment by consult (except dental clinic) 60% of the PIDP patient
Neurology, oorhinolaryngology, or aesthesiology and pain medicine
50% of the PIDP patient
Neurology, oorhinolaryngology, or aesthesiology and pain medicine
None
NRS (before treatment, min-max) 6.1±2.1 (3.0-8.0) 5.7±1.7 (3.5-8.5) 3.4±1.9 (1.0-7.0)
NRS (after treatment, min-max) 3.5±2.0 (2.0-7.0) 3.7±1.2 (2.0-6.0) 0.2±0.4 (0.0-1.0)
Symptom of pain site Pain quality:
dull, nagging, itching, burning, throbbing, discomfort feeling, pressure
Pain duration: continuously or minutes
Pain quality:
dull, nagging, electric like, itching, burning, throbbing, discomfort, prickling
Pain duration: continuously or minutes
Pain quality:
throbbing, shooting pain, swelling feeling,
Pain duration: intermittent (almost when teeth stimuli)
Sign of the pain site PA lesion: none
RCT or extraction: none
PA lesion: none, RCT state: 6 cases
Extraction state: 2 cases, implant state: 2 cases
PA lesion: all case
RCT state: 1 case
Aggravating factor Chewing, mechanical stimuli, stress, fatigue Chewing or teeth irritation, not brushing teeth after eating, in the night or before sleeping, stress, mechanical stimuli Chewing or eating
Fatigue
Comorbidity symptom Pain of the below area in affected site
- Ear
- Temporal area
- Mandible area
Pain of the below area in affected site
- Surrounding teeth
- Temporal area, zygoma area
- Eye, ear, and nose area, uvula area
Multiple toothache (unilateral)
None
Treatment Commonly medication
- Nortriptyline
- Gabapentin, clonazepam
Commonly medication
- Nortriptyline, duloxetine
- Gabapentin, clonazepam
- NSAIDs
Root canal treatment and crown
Extraction and implant installation
Incision and drainage
Medication: NSAIDs and antibacterial agent
Follow up period (mo, min-max) 4.4±6.1 (0.8-15.0) 8.1±5.0 (2.0-15.0) 7.8±5.7 (0.2-15.0)
Prognosis Some symptoms persist (even though better than before medication)
Or Repeated relief and exacerbation of symptoms
Or Discontinuation of treatment
Some symptoms persist (even though better than before medication)
Or Repeated relief and exacerbation of symptoms
※ Factors of the aggravating symptom: stress, fatigue, sleep deficiency, dental treatment process
※ In many cases, pain site becomes widespread during the follow-up period (from unilateral dentoalveolar area to orofacial and headache, or bilateral multi teeth)
All symptoms are relieved (after appropriate treatment)
None of the relief and exacerbation of symptoms
※ The two cases didn’t treat, but the pain did not increase (NRS 0.5-1), and none of the widespread and comorbidity symptoms despite chronic pain status.

PIDP-a, persistent idiopathic dentoalveolar pain without surgical procedures; PIDP-b, persistent idiopathic dentoalveolar pain with surgical procedures; min, minimum; max, maximum; SNUDH, Seoul National University Dental Hospital; NRS, numeric rating scale; PA, periapical; RCT, root canal treatment; NSAIDs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation (range).

References
  1. De Laat A. Differential diagnosis of toothache to prevent erroneous and unnecessary dental treatment. J Oral Rehabil 2020;47:775-781.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. International Classification of Orofacial Pain, 1st edition (ICOP). Cephalalgia 2020;40:129-221.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Coulter J, Nixdorf DR. A review of persistent idiopathic dentoalveolar pain (formerly PDAP/Atypical odontalgia). Oral Surg 2020;13:371-378.
    CrossRef
  4. Svensson P, Baad-Hansen L, Pigg M, et al. Guidelines and recommendations for assessment of somatosensory function in oro-facial pain conditions--a taskforce report. J Oral Rehabil 2011;38:366-394.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Rolke R, Baron R, Maier C, et al. Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): standardized protocol and reference values. Pain 2006;123:231-243. Erratum in: Pain 2006;125:197.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Baad-Hansen L, Pigg M, Ivanovic SE, et al. Intraoral somatosensory abnormalities in patients with atypical odontalgia--a controlled multicenter quantitative sensory testing study. Pain 2013;154:1287-1294.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  7. Maier C, Baron R, Tölle TR, et al. Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): somatosensory abnormalities in 1236 patients with different neuropathic pain syndromes. Pain 2010;150:439-450.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Jääskeläinen SK, Teerijoki-Oksa T, Forssell H. Neurophysiologic and quantitative sensory testing in the diagnosis of trigeminal neuropathy and neuropathic pain. Pain 2005;117:349-357.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Vollert J, Attal N, Baron R, et al. Quantitative sensory testing using DFNS protocol in Europe: an evaluation of heterogeneity across multiple centers in patients with peripheral neuropathic pain and healthy subjects. Pain 2016;157:750-758.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Hansson P, Backonja M, Bouhassira D. Usefulness and limitations of quantitative sensory testing: clinical and research application in neuropathic pain states. Pain 2007;129:256-259.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Marbach JJ. Is phantom tooth pain a deafferentation (neuropathic) syndrome? Part I: evidence derived from pathophysiology and treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1993;75:95-105.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Durham J, Stone SJ, Robinson LJ, Ohrbach R, Nixdorf DR. Development and preliminary evaluation of a new screening instrument for atypical odontalgia and persistent dentoalveolar pain disorder. Int Endod J 2019;52:279-287.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Carleton RN, Abrams MP, Asmundson GJ, Antony MM, McCabe RE. Pain-related anxiety and anxiety sensitivity across anxiety and depressive disorders. J Anxiety Disord 2009;23:791-798.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Miura A, Tu TTH, Shinohara Y, et al. Psychiatric comorbidities in patients with Atypical Odontalgia. J Psychosom Res 2018;104:35-40.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. List T, Leijon G, Svensson P. Somatosensory abnormalities in atypical odontalgia: a case-control study. Pain 2008;139:333-341.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Nixdorf D, Moana-Filho E. Persistent dento-alveolar pain disorder (PDAP): working towards a better understanding. Rev Pain 2011;5:18-27.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  17. Geber C, Klein T, Azad S, et al. Test-retest and interobserver reliability of quantitative sensory testing according to the protocol of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): a multi-centre study. Pain 2011;152:548-556.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Hellman KM, Roth GE, Dillane KE, et al. Dysmenorrhea subtypes exhibit differential quantitative sensory assessment profiles. Pain 2020;161:1227-1236.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  19. Puretić MB, Demarin V. Neuroplasticity mechanisms in the pathophysiology of chronic pain. Acta Clin Croat 2012;51:425-429.
    Pubmed
  20. Jessri M, Sultan AS, Tavares T, Schug S. Central mechanisms of pain in orofacial pain patients: implications for management. J Oral Pathol Med 2020;49:476-483.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Obermann M, Nebel K, Schumann C, et al. Gray matter changes related to chronic posttraumatic headache. Neurology 2009;73:978-983.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Hassona Y, El-Ma'aita A, Amarin J, Taee AA. Diagnostic delay and suboptimal management in persistent idiopathic facial pain and persistent dentoalveolar pain; a cross-sectional study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2019;127:498-503.
    Pubmed CrossRef


June 2022, 47 (2)