Browsing by Author "Alonso, AA"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Dental Students Learning Experiences and Preferences Regarding Orofacial Pain: A cross-sectional study
    (Journal of Dental Education, 2015-10-01) Alonso, AA; Teich, ST; Lang, L; Heima, M
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Dental Students perceived level of competence in orofacial pain.
    (Journal of Dental Education, 2014-10-01) Alonso, AA; Heima, M; Lang, LA; Teich, ST
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    The Adaptive, Pain Sensitive, and Global Symptoms Clusters: Evidence from a Patient-Based Study.
    (JDR clinical and translational research, 2023-04) Al-Hamed, FS; Alonso, AA; Vivaldi, D; Smith, SB; Meloto, CB

    Objectives

    The largest epidemiologic study conducted about painful temporomandibular disorders (pTMDs) to date identified 3 clusters of individuals with similar symptoms-adaptive, pain sensitive, and global symptoms-which hold promise as a means of personalizing pain care. Our goal was to compare the clinical and psychological characteristics that are consistent with a pTMD clinical examination among patients who are seeking care and assigned to the different clusters.

    Methods

    This cross-sectional study used data from the medical records of patients attending Duke Innovative Pain Therapies between August 2017 and April 2021 who received a pTMD diagnosis (i.e., myalgia) and consented to have their data used for research. Data included orofacial and pain-related measures, dental features, and psychological measures. We used the Rapid OPPERA Algorithm to assign clusters to patients and multinomial regression to determine the likelihood (odds ratios [OR] and 95% confidence intervals [CI]) of being assigned to the pain sensitive or global symptoms cluster attributed to each measure.

    Results

    In total, 131 patients were included in this study and assigned a cluster: adaptive (n = 54, 41.2%), pain sensitive (n = 49, 37.4%), and global symptoms (n = 28, 21.4%). The PS cluster displayed greater numbers of temporomandibular joint sites (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.65) and masticatory (1.48; 1.19 to 1.83) and cervical (1.23; 1.09 to 1.39) muscles with pain evoked by palpation. The GS cluster displayed greater scores of pain catastrophizing (1.04; 1.01 to 1.06) and perceived stress (1.23; 1.03 to 1.46) and was more likely to report persistent pain (16.23; 1.92 to 137.1) of higher impact (1.43; 1.14 to 1.80).

    Conclusion

    Our findings support that care-seeking patients with pTMDs who are assigned to the GS cluster display a poorer psychological profile, even though those assigned to the PS cluster display more measures consistent with orofacial pain. Findings also establish the PS cluster as a group that does not display psychological comorbidities despite being hypersensitive.

    Knowledge transfer statement

    This study informs clinicians that patients seeking care for painful temporomandibular disorders, in specific cases of myalgia, can be classified into 1 of 3 groups that display unique profiles of symptoms. Most importantly, it emphasizes the importance of examining patients with painful temporomandibular disorders in a holistic manner that includes assessing symptoms of psychological distress. Patients with greater psychological distress will likely benefit from multidisciplinary treatment strategies that may include psychological treatments.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    When static meets dynamic: Comparing cone-beam computed tomography and acoustic reflection for upper airway analysis
    (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2016-10-01) Alonso, AA
    INTRODUCTION: Upper airway measurement can be important for the diagnosis of breathing disorders. Acoustic reflection (AR) is an accepted tool for studying the airway. Our objective was to investigate the differences between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and AR in calculating airway volumes and areas. METHODS: Subjects with prescribed CBCT images as part of their records were also asked to have AR performed. A total of 59 subjects (mean age, 15 ± 3.8 years) had their upper airway (5 areas) measured from CBCT images, acoustic rhinometry, and acoustic pharyngometry. Volumes and minimal cross-sectional areas were extracted and compared with software. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation on 20 randomly selected subjects, remeasured 2 weeks apart, showed high reliability (r >0.77). Means of total nasal volume were significantly different between the 2 methods (P = 0.035), but anterior nasal volume and minimal cross-sectional area showed no differences (P = 0.532 and P = 0.066, respectively). Pharyngeal volume showed significant differences (P = 0.01) with high correlation (r = 0.755), whereas pharyngeal minimal cross-sectional area showed no differences (P = 0.109). The pharyngeal volume difference may not be considered clinically significant, since it is 758 mm3 for measurements showing means of 11,000 ± 4000 mm3. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT is an accurate method for measuring anterior nasal volume, nasal minimal cross-sectional area, pharyngeal volume, and pharyngeal minimal cross-sectional area.