BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) is increasingly used to manage painful temporomandibular disorders (TMD). However, the effect of BTX-A on muscular TMD remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy, safety and optimal dose of BTX-A for treating TMD.
METHODS: We conducted systematic literature searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Library until March 2023. We extracted data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of BTX-A in treating muscular TMD. We performed a meta-analysis using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs involving 504 participants met the inclusion criteria. BTX-A was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing pain intensity, as measured on a 0-10 scale, at 1 month (MD [95% CI] = -1.92 [-2.87, -0.98], p < .0001) and 6 months (MD [95% CI] -2.08, [-3.19 to -0.98]; p = .0002). A higher dosage of BTX-A (60-100 U bilaterally) was associated with a greater reduction in pain at 6 months (MD [95% CI] = -2.98 [-3.52, -2.44]; p < .001). BTX-A also resulted in decreased masseter muscle intensity (μV) (MD [95% CI] = -44.43 [-71.33, -17.53]; p = .001) at 1 month and occlusal force (kg) at 3 months (MD [95% CI] = -30.29 [-48.22 to -12.37]; p = .0009). There was no significant difference in adverse events between BTX-A and placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: BTX-A is a safe and effective treatment for reducing pain and improving temporomandibular muscle and joint function in muscular TMD patients. A bilateral dose of 60-100 U might be an optimal choice for treating muscular TMD pain.
AIMS: To systematically review the scientific literature for evidence concerning the clinical use of botulinum toxin (BTX) for the management of various temporomandibular disorders (TMDs).
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to find randomized clinical trials (RCT) published between 2000 and the end of April 2021 investigating the use of BTX to treat TMDs. The selected articles were reviewed and tabulated according to the PICO (patients/problem/population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format.
RESULTS: A total of 24 RCTs were selected. Nine articles used BTX injections to treat myofascial pain, 4 to treat temporomandibular joint (TMJ) articular TMDs, 8 for the management of bruxism, and 3 to treat masseter hypertrophy. A total of 411 patients were treated by injection of BTX. Wide variability was found in the methods of injection and in the doses injected. Many trials concluded superiority of BTX injections over placebo for reducing TMD pain levels and improving maximum mouth opening; however, this was not universal.
CONCLUSION: There is good scientific evidence to support the use of BTX injections for treatment of masseter hypertrophy and equivocal evidence for myogenous TMDs, but very little for TMJ articular disorders. Studies with improved methodologic design are needed to gain better insight into the utility and effectiveness of BTX injections for treating both myogenous and TMJ articular TMDs and to establish suitable protocols for treating different TMDs.
Botulinum neurotoxins are produced by the gram-positive anaerobic bacteria Clostridium botulinum, of which several different serotypes have been identified 1,2 . Botulinum neurotoxin type A (BTA) is clinically used the most due to the longer duration of its effect 3,4 and is the focus of this article. One of the first to investigate BTA was Brooks, as he in 1953, showed that when injecting BTA in muscle tissue it inhibited the release of Acetylcholine (ACh) at the neuromuscular junction and rendered motor nerve filaments unexcitable 3 . It has since been shown that BTA inhibits synaptosomal nerve-associated protein 25 (SNAP-25), a protein involved in the release of ACh filled vesicles into the synaptic cleft through the assembly of the soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive fusion protein attachment protein receptors (SNARE) complex, which is necessary for docking and fusing neurotransmitter vesicles with neuronal membranes.
The aim of this review was to critically investigate and assess the evidence relating to the use and efficacy of botulinum toxin (BTX) in the management of temporomandibular joint disorders (TMD) and masticatory myofascial pain. A comprehensive search was conducted of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL, to find relevant studies from the last 30 years up to the end of July 2018. Seven were identified. Three showed a significant reduction in pain between the BTX and placebo groups and one showed a clinical, but not a significant, difference. In one that compared BTX with another novel treatment, myofascial pain reduced equally in both groups, and in the remaining two there was no significant difference in pain reduction between the BTX and control groups. Of the four studies that assessed mouth opening, two reported that BTX had resulted in a slight improvement; one reported no improvement, and the other a worsening of the condition. A meta-analysis was not possible because of the considerable variation in the studies' designs, the heterogeneity between the groups, and the different assessment tools used. Despite showing benefits, consensus on the therapeutic benefit of BTX in the management of myofascial TMD is lacking. Further randomised controlled trials with larger sample sizes, minimal bias, and longer follow-up periods are now needed.
OBJECTIVE: A network meta‐analysis (NMA) of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) was performed aiming to compare the treatment outcome of dry needling, acupuncture or wet needling using different substances in managing myofascial pain of the masticatory muscles (TMD‐M). METHOD: An electronic search was undertaken to identify RCTs published until September 2019, comparing dry needling, acupuncture or wet needling using local anaesthesia (LA), botulinum toxin‐A (BTX‐A), granisetron, platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) or passive placebo versus real active placebo in patients with TMD‐M. RCTs meeting the inclusion criteria were stratified according to the follow‐up time: immediate post‐treatment to 3 weeks, and 1 to 6 months post‐treatment. Outcome variables were post‐treatment pain intensity, increased mouth opening (MMO) and pressure threshold pain (PPT). The quality of evidence was rated according to Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. Mean difference (MD) was used to analysed via frequentist NMA using Stata software. RESULTS: Twenty‐one RCTs involving 959 patients were included. The quality of evidence of the included studies was low or very low. There was significant pain decrease after PRP when compared to an active/passive placebo and acupuncture. There was a significant improvement of MMO after LA (MD = 3.65; CI: 1.18‐6.1) and dry needling therapy (MD = 2.37; CI: 0.66‐4) versus placebo. The three highest ranked treatments for short‐term post‐treatment pain reduction in TMD‐M (1‐20 days) were PRP (95.8%), followed by LA (62.5%) and dry needling (57.1%), whereas the three highest ranked treatments at intermediate‐term follow‐up (1‐6 months) were LA (90.2%), dry needling (66.1%) and BTX‐A (52.1%) (all very low‐quality evidence). LA (96.4%) was the most effective treatment regarding the increase in MMO followed by dry needling (72.4%). CONCLUSION: Based on this NMA, one can conclude that the effectiveness of needling therapy did not depend on needling type (dry or wet) or needling substance. The outcome of this NMA suggests that LA, BTX‐A, granisetron and PRP hold some promise as injection therapies, but no definite conclusions can be drawn due to the low quality of evidence of the included studies. This NMA did not provide enough support for any of the needling therapies for TMD‐M.
Introduction The medical and cosmetic use of botulinum toxin (BTX) is now widespread. With an increased number of clinicians adopting the use of BTX in the management of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and/or bruxism, as either a standalone treatment or as an adjunct, affirmation is required in regards to whether it has a clinically justifiable position among the current spectrum of available treatment modalities.Objectives To establish the usefulness of BTX when treating patients with TMD and/or bruxism, and thereby determine whether there may be an appropriate purpose for the prescription of BTX in the management of these patients.Data sources and data selection A systematic review of the relevant literature was conducted. The literature search was carried out by applying key terms to appropriate data sources (Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and OpenSIGLE). The resultant papers were subjected to inclusion and exclusion criteria, which were then assessed for bias using a framework outlined in the Cochrane Handbook.Results A total of 11 trials met the inclusion criteria. The primary outcome measure was changes in pain experience in groups that had been treated with BTX, relative to an appropriate control group. Secondary outcomes included changes in the frequency of bruxism events, changes in maximum mouth opening, changes in occlusal force and changes in electromyography (EMG) readings of muscles of mastication.Conclusion The evidence to support the use of BTX in the management of TMD and/or bruxism is not entirely unequivocal. A number of studies that have met the inclusion criteria have shown promising results and thereby justify further investigation. Given the current evidence, BTX should certainly be considered but due to financial implications and possible side effects, it seems appropriate that conservative options, such as self-management with explanation and physical therapies, should be exhausted first.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to conduct a systematic review of literature assessing botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) safety and adverse effects in the treatment of myofascial pain (MFP) and trigeminal neuralgia (TN).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The search for articles by two specific researchers involved the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Specific terms were used, and no publication time and language restrictions were applied. Clinical trials that investigated the effects of BoNT-A among participants with myofascial pain in masticatory muscles or trigeminal neuralgia were considered eligible for this systematic review. Data for each study were extracted and analyzed according to a PICO-like structured reading.
RESULTS: The search strategy provided 436 citations. After analysis, 16 citations were included, seven for MFP and nine for TN. In all studies, BoNT-A was well tolerated and improved pain. The most common adverse effects were temporary regional weakness, tenderness over the injection sites, and minor discomfort during chewing. Most studies reported a spontaneous resolution of adverse effect.
CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that BoNT-A treatment is well tolerated, since minor adverse effects were the most frequently reported; however, it is recommended that future studies aim to assess the safety and possible adverse effects of multiples applications or high doses of this treatment.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: BoNT-A has been increasingly diffused in dentistry, being used for the management of masticatory myofascial pain and trigeminal neuralgia. Nonetheless, there is no consensus about its efficacy and adverse effects that could occur when this treatment is applied.
Journal»Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology
INTRODUCTION: Critical evidence on the therapeutic efficacy of botulinum toxins (BTX) is still lacking for most pain conditions. The aim of this review was to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of BTX in the management of temporomandibular myofascial pain.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and gray literature were searched for randomized clinical trials until February 2018 to answer a focused question "What is the effectiveness of botulinum toxin in the management of temporomandibular myofascial pain?" Two independent reviewers performed the study selection according to eligibility criteria.
RESULTS: A total of seven studies that met the eligibility criteria were included. Two studies showed a significant improvement in temporomandibular myofascial pain, and one study showed equal efficacy of BTX in comparison with facial manipulation, while the remaining studies did not report any significant difference between BTX and control group. Due to heterogeneity in the methodology and outcome assessment, a meta-analysis and recalculation of risk could not be performed.
CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, the therapeutic efficacy of BTX was unclear. Randomized controlled trials with better methodological criteria need to be carried out to evaluate the real effectiveness of BTX.
Temporomandibular myofascial pain presents a major challenge in the diagnosis of temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Due to the characteristics of this condition, intramuscular injection procedures are often needed for adequate control of symptoms and treatment. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of dry needling and injection with different substances in temporomandibular myofascial pain. Electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL/Cochrane, Lilacs, Scopus, Web of Science and CAPES Catalog of Dissertations and Theses were searched for randomized clinical trials until January 2018. Manual search was performed in relevant journals and in the references/citations of the included studies. The selection of studies was carried out by two independent reviewers according to eligibility criteria. From 7128 eligible studies, 137 were selected for full-text analysis and 18 were included. Due to the heterogeneity of the primary studies it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. The narrative analysis of the results showed that most of the studies had methodological limitations and biases that compromised the quality of the findings. Dry needling and local anaesthesic injections seem promising, but there is a need to conduct further randomized clinical trials, with larger samples and longer follow-up times, to evaluate the real effectiveness of the technique and evaluated substances.
Botulinum toxin (Botox) is an exotoxin produced from Clostridium botulinum. It blocks the release of acetylcholine from the cholinergic nerve end plates resulting in inactivity of the muscles or glands innervated. The efficacy of Botox in facial aesthetics is well established; however, recent literature has highlighted its utilization in multiple non-cosmetic medical and surgical conditions. The present article reviews the current evidence pertaining to Botox use in the non-cosmetic head and neck conditions. A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science and the Cochrane databases limited to English Language articles published from January 1980 to December 2014. The findings showed that there is level 1 evidence supporting the efficacy of Botox in the treatment of laryngeal dystonia, headache, cervical dystonia, masticatory myalgia, sialorrhoea, temporomandibular joint disorders, bruxism, blepharospasm, hemifacial spasm and rhinitis. For chronic neck pain there is level 1 evidence to show that Botox is ineffective. Level 2 evidence exists for vocal tics and trigeminal. For stuttering, facial nerve paresis, Frey's syndrome and oromandibular dystonia the evidence is level 4. Thus, there is compelling evidence in the published literature to demonstrate the beneficial role of Botox in a wide range of non-cosmetic conditions pertaining to the head and neck (mainly level 1 evidence). With more and more research, the range of clinical applications and number of individuals getting Botox will doubtlessly increase. Botox appears to justify its title as 'the poison that heals'.
Botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) is increasingly used to manage painful temporomandibular disorders (TMD). However, the effect of BTX-A on muscular TMD remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE:
To assess the efficacy, safety and optimal dose of BTX-A for treating TMD.
METHODS:
We conducted systematic literature searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Library until March 2023. We extracted data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of BTX-A in treating muscular TMD. We performed a meta-analysis using a random-effects model.
RESULTS:
Fifteen RCTs involving 504 participants met the inclusion criteria. BTX-A was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing pain intensity, as measured on a 0-10 scale, at 1 month (MD [95% CI] = -1.92 [-2.87, -0.98], p < .0001) and 6 months (MD [95% CI] -2.08, [-3.19 to -0.98]; p = .0002). A higher dosage of BTX-A (60-100 U bilaterally) was associated with a greater reduction in pain at 6 months (MD [95% CI] = -2.98 [-3.52, -2.44]; p < .001). BTX-A also resulted in decreased masseter muscle intensity (μV) (MD [95% CI] = -44.43 [-71.33, -17.53]; p = .001) at 1 month and occlusal force (kg) at 3 months (MD [95% CI] = -30.29 [-48.22 to -12.37]; p = .0009). There was no significant difference in adverse events between BTX-A and placebo.
CONCLUSIONS:
BTX-A is a safe and effective treatment for reducing pain and improving temporomandibular muscle and joint function in muscular TMD patients. A bilateral dose of 60-100 U might be an optimal choice for treating muscular TMD pain.
