4.0 Article

Self-Reported Migraine and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Are More Prevalent in People with Myofascial vs Nonmyofascial Temporomandibular Disorders

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORAL & FACIAL PAIN AND HEADACHE
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 7-13

Publisher

QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO INC
DOI: 10.11607/ofph.1550

Keywords

central sensitivity syndrome; comorbidity; myofascial pain; overlapping conditions; temporomandibular disorders

Funding

  1. Louise and Alan Edwards Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To compare the number of comorbidities and the prevalence of five specific comorbidities in people who have temporomandibular disorders (TMD) with or without myofascial pain. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 180 patients seeking TMD treatment in Boston and Montreal hospitals. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect information on sociodemographic and behavioral factors, as well as the presence of the following five comorbidities: migraine, chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, interstitial cystitis, and restless leg syndrome. TMD was diagnosed using the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD. Chi-square and Student t tests were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively, to test for differences between myofascial (n = 121) and nonmyofascial (n = 59) TMD groups. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to compare the type and number of self-reported comorbidities in both groups, controlling for confounding variables. Results: The following were found to be significantly higher in the myofascial TMD group than in the nonmyofascial TMD group: self-reported migraine (55% vs 28%, P =.001), chronic fatigue syndrome (19% vs 5%, P =.01), and the mean total number of comorbidities (1.30 vs 0.83, P =.01). Conclusion: Individuals with myofascial TMD had a higher prevalence of self-reported migraine and chronic fatigue syndrome than those with nonmyofascial TMD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available