Driving stress is a multifaceted phenomenon, and the experience of driving invokes stress. Driving causes the activation of stress-response mechanisms, leading to short-term and long-term stress responses resulting in physiological and behavioral changes. The aim of this study was to evaluate driving stress-initiated effects on orofacial functions and health behaviors in the Riyadh population. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Riyadh using a pre-validated set of questionnaires for habitual information, a driving stress assessment using a driving-behavior inventory, and an assessment of parafunctional habits and effects on orofacial functions. The results indicate that nearly 50% of the sample spends more than two hours commuting, and more than 50% of the sample has inadequate sleep and insufficient exercise. Oral parafunctional habits like nail biting (p = 0.039) and lip or object biting (p = 0.029) had a significant correlation with aggressive driving behaviors, whereas the grinding of teeth (p = 0.011), the clenching of jaws (p = 0.048), lip or object biting (p = 0.018), and pain in mastication (p = 0.036) had a positive correlation with driving dislikes. Driving stress can be detrimental to one\'s health and not only impacts health behaviors but also induces oral parafunctional habits and adversely affects orofacial regions and functions. Acute driving stress responses may be transient. However, prolonged driving stress can be maladaptive and can increase the risk of chronic diseases including chronic temporomandibular joint disorders and parafunctional habit-related changes in the oral cavity.

The diagnosis of myofascial pain syndrome is usually made after structural-morphological explanations have been ruled out. The lack of positive findings to guide treatment inevitably leaves room for interpretation despite the extensive use of all imaging, neurophysiological or serological diagnostics. Under these circumstances, a careful differential diagnosis must be made between functional and structural aspects, both of which in many cases must be assessed in their different relevance. Particular attention must be paid to indications of vegetative-sympathetic adjustment disorders.The great importance of a clinical, experience-based approach to this symptom pattern becomes clear here, especially if the technical diagnostic data is of no help. The dominance of imaging findings naturally promotes a structure-based, mechanistic understanding of the illness. In contrast, the emotional, vegetative mood of the patient should be given greater consideration as a diagnostic and therapeutic focus. Treatment measures should have a high success rate, as persistent reductions in stimulus thresholds may lead to prognostically unfavorable chronification.
UNASSIGNED: Die Diagnose eines myofaszialen Schmerzsyndroms wird in der Regel gestellt nach Ausschluss strukturell-morphologischer Erklärungsmuster. Das Fehlen handlungsleitender radiologischer oder neurophysiologischer Befunde eröffnet unvermeidlich einen Interpretationsspielraum. Unter diesen Umständen muss sorgfältig differentialdiagnostisch abgewogen werden zwischen funktionellen und strukturellen Gesichtspunkten, die in vielen Fällen beide in ihrer unterschiedlichen jeweiligen Relevanz zu würdigen sind. Insbesondere muss auf Hinweise für vegetativ-sympathische Anpassungsstörungen geachtet werden.Dieser Zusammenhang betont die große Bedeutung eines klinischen, erfahrungsgestützten Zugangs zu diesem Beschwerdebild, insbesondere wenn die technischen Diagnosedaten nicht weiterhelfen. Die Dominanz der bildgebenden Befunde fördert naturgemäß ein strukturbasiertes, mechanistisches Krankheitsverständnis. Demgegenüber ist die emotionale, vegetative Gestimmtheit der Patienten als diagnostischer und therapeutischer Schwerpunkt beim MFSS stark zu beachten. Behandlungsmaßnahmen sollten eine hohe Erfolgsquote haben, da anhaltende Reizschwellenabsenkungen zur prognostisch ungünstigen Chronifizierung führen.

UNASSIGNED: This systematic review aimed to answer the question, \"What is the efficacy of acupuncture treatment in patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD) with myofascial pain?\".
UNASSIGNED: This study followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. The electronic search strategy was applied to the Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Science Direct databases. As inclusion criteria, were selected randomized clinical articles that evaluated patients with myofascial pain symptoms treated by acupuncture without the restriction of time and language.
UNASSIGNED: The search in the databases resulted in 286 articles, after removing the duplicates 251 were analyzed by title and abstract. Twenty were selected for full reading and 10 were included in the systematic review. The studies evaluated acupuncture treatments by puncture and laser, auriculotherapy by puncture and laser, and an occlusal device for treating myofascial TMD.
UNASSIGNED: Comparing acupuncture with placebo acupuncture, it was observed that it is effective for subjective pain relief and palpation of orofacial structures with immediate results; it should be noted that there is still no specific protocol and that the duration of treatment must be personalized. When comparing it with the occlusal device, the associated treatment has enhanced the results. Future studies are suggested by the current literature gap that prevents the determination of clinical guidelines for effective acupuncture treatment in TMD patients with myofascial pain.
UNASSIGNED: Laser and needle puncture acupuncture treatment and laser and needle puncture auriculotherapy have shown favorable results in short-term myofascial pain relief. The need for long-term studies to assess benefits and reduce possible biases is highlighted.
UNASSIGNED: PROSPERO (CRD42021271505).

UNASSIGNED: To assess the therapeutic efficacy of botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) for managing myofascial pain related to temporomandibular disorders (TMDs).
UNASSIGNED: This study was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 statement guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The primary outcome was a pain score on the visual analog scale, and the secondary outcomes were maximum mouth opening and adverse effects. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess risk bias. A meta-analysis of studies with the same interventions, controls, assessment methods, and follow-up durations was performed.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 519 studies were retrieved, of which 20 randomized controlled trials were included in the qualitative analysis and six were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that, compared with placebo, BTX-A injection was more effective at relieving myofascial pain, and its effect was similar to that of conventional methods. However, there was no difference in maximum mouth opening between the two groups. After the study assessment with the RoB 2.0 tool, six studies showed a low risk of bias, 13 studies showed some concerns regarding the reported results, and only one study showed a high risk of bias. Adverse effects of BTX-A injection were observed in four studies.
UNASSIGNED: In conclusion, BTX-A is effective at relieving pain in TMD patients but does not improve mouth opening. To minimize adverse effects, we recommend a low dose of BTX-A for TMD patients who do not experience complete pain relief from conservative treatments.

BACKGROUND: Injections of botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) have been proposed as an additional treatment modality for patients suffering chronic temporomandibular disorder (TMD)-related myofascial pain (MFP). BoNT-A impairs muscle function, along with its analgesic effect, and a minimal effective dose should be used. The objective of this randomized placebo-controlled crossover study was to evaluate the clinical benefit of a moderate dose (50 U) of BoNT-A.
METHODS: Sixty-six subjects were randomized into two groups, one which received BoNT-A first and a second which received a saline solution (SS) first. Follow-ups were performed 2, 11, and 16 weeks after the injections. Diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) diagnostic algorithms were used to evaluate characteristic pain intensity (CPI) and pain-related disability based on the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS). Electromyographic and bite force were also evaluated.
RESULTS: The within-group analysis showed a significant improvement in pain intensity and pain-related disability after BoNT-A (p < 0.001, p = 0.005, p = 0.011) and SS (p = 0.003, p = 0.005, p = 0.046) injections up to week 16. The between-group analysis of pain-related variables revealed no differences between groups at any time. Nonetheless, BoNT-A, but not SS, caused a significant decline in muscle performance. The number needed to treat (NNT) regarding a clinically significant pain reduction (≥30%) was 6.3, 57.0, and 19.0 at 2, 11, and 16-week follow-ups favoring BoNT-A.
CONCLUSIONS: Injections of 50 U of BoNT-A might improve MFP symptoms, but the specific effect of the drug on pain compared to the placebo is not obvious.

UNASSIGNED: There are no data on the additional contribution of dry needling (DN) for trigger points (TPs) accompanying patients with cervical spondylosis (CS).
UNASSIGNED: To analyse the contribution of DN applied to concomitant active TPs in the upper trapezius muscle on the treatment outcomes of physiotherapy in CS.
UNASSIGNED: In this prospective randomized controlled study, 70 patients with CS and active TPs in the upper trapezius muscle were included. The first group received physiotherapy for 5 days per week for 3 weeks. The second group received DN with the same program. All participants were evaluated before treatment (day 0) and at the end of treatment (day 21) in terms of pain, functional status, quality of life, anxiety/depression scores, and number of TPs.
UNASSIGNED: 33 patients in the first group and 32 patients in the second group completed the study. While the change over time was found significant in all variables, the change was not different between groups. The group-time interaction effect was not found to be statistically significant in any variable. Percentage changes of all variables were similar between the groups.
UNASSIGNED: DN treatment added to the physiotherapy did not contribute to recovery in patients with CS.

BACKGROUND: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a particular type of temporomandibular joint disorder. Research findings comparing various treatment approaches are scarce and controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of ultrasound therapy, stabilization splint, TheraBite device, and masticatory muscle exercises in reducing pain intensity and improving mandibular mobility in patients with MPS.
METHODS: It was a single-blind, randomized, parallel-group, active-controlled trial that took place between April 2023 and October 2023 at the Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Damascus University. Patients older than 18 years old with myofascial pain accompanied by limited jaw opening and pain lasting for at least 6 months were included. Eighty patients were randomly assigned into four groups using online randomization software: ultrasound therapy, stabilization splint, TheraBite device, and masticatory muscle exercises. Only outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The exercise regimen was the exercise program for patients with TMD. The following primary outcome measures were considered at the baseline (t0), at the first (t1), second (t2), and fourth (t3) week of treatment, and at the second (t4) and fifth (t5) month of follow-up: pain intensity using the visual analogue scale, maximum interincisal opening, right lateral movement, and left lateral movement measured in millimeters.
RESULTS: The pain level changed from severe to mild at t3 in ultrasound therapy, stabilization splint, and TheraBite device groups. In the masticatory muscle exercises group, it changed to moderate, with a significant difference between ultrasound therapy (p = 0.012) and stabilization splint (p = 0.013) groups. In addition, the mandibular mobility continued to improve at the subsequent follow-up periods (t4 and t5).
CONCLUSIONS: All therapies are equally effective after 5-month follow-up. However, ultrasound therapy and stabilization splints have the benefit of achieving rapid improvement.
BACKGROUND: ISRCTN20833186.

Piriformis syndrome is a condition that is proposed to result from compression of the sciatic nerve, either in whole or in part, in the deep gluteal space by the piriformis muscle. The prevalence of piriformis syndrome depends upon the diagnostic criteria being used and the population studied but is estimated by some to be 5%-6% in all cases of low back, buttock, and leg pain and up to 17% of patients with chronic low back pain. While the sciatic nerve may pierce the piriformis muscle in about 16% of healthy individuals, this frequency is no different in those with the syndrome; thus, the relationship to this anatomic finding is unclear. The most common symptoms are buttock pain, external tenderness over the greater sciatic notch, and aggravation of the pain through sitting. Many clinical signs are reported for piriformis syndrome, but the sensitivity and specificity are unclear, in part because of the lack of a uniformly accepted case definition. In the majority of cases in the literature, it appears that the diagnosis is more ascribed to a myofascial condition rather than a focal neuropathy. Electrodiagnostic studies can be useful to exclude other causes of symptoms, but there is no well-accepted test to confirm the presence of piriformis syndrome. Ultrasound imaging may show thickening of the piriformis muscle, but further research is required to confirm that this is correlated with the clinical diagnosis. Magnetic resonance imaging and neurography may hold promise in the future, but there are not yet sufficient data to support adopting these methods as a standard diagnostic tool. The initial treatment of piriformis syndrome is typically conservative management with the general rehabilitation principles similar to other soft tissue musculoskeletal conditions. Local anesthetic, botulinum toxin, and/or corticosteroid injections have been reported by some to be beneficial for diagnostic or treatment purposes. Surgical interventions have also been used with variable success.

Myofascial pain is a soft tissue pain syndrome with local and referred musculoskeletal pain arising from trigger points. Myofascial pain and myofascial pain syndromes are among some of the most common acute and chronic pain conditions. Myofascial pain can exist independently of other pain generators or can coexist with or is secondary to other acute and chronic painful musculoskeletal conditions. Myofascial pain is most effectively treated with a multimodal treatment plan including injection therapy (known as trigger point injections, physical therapy, postural or ergonomic correction, and treatment of underlying musculoskeletal pain generators. The objectives of this review are to outline the prevalence of myofascial pain, describe the known pathophysiology of myofascial pain and trigger points, discuss the clinical presentation of myofascial pain, and present evidence-based best practices for pharmacologic, non-pharmacologic, and interventional treatments for myofascial pain.

UNASSIGNED: To formulate the most current, evidence-based recommendations for the clinical and radiologic diagnosis of acute low back pain lasting <4 weeks.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar databases was performed from 2012 to 2022 using the search terms \"acute back pain AND clinical diagnosis\" and \"acute back pain AND radiologic diagnosis\". Screening criteria resulted in a total of 97 papers analyzed. Using the Delphi method and two rounds of voting, the WFNS (World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies) Spine Committee generated ten final consensus statements.
UNASSIGNED: Ten final consensus statements address the clinical diagnosis of acute LBP, including which clinical conditions cause acute LBP and how we can distinguish between the different causes of LBP, including discogenic, facet joint, sacroiliac joint, and myofascial pain. The most important step for the radiologic diagnosis of acute LBP is to evaluate the necessity of radiologic investigation, as well as its timing and the most appropriate type of imaging modality. Importantly, imaging should not be a routine diagnostic tool, unless red flag signs are present. In fact, routine imaging for acute LBP can actually have a negative effect as it may reveal incidental radiographic findings that exacerbate patient fear and anxiety.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, the quality of evidence is not high for most of our consensus statements, and further studies are needed to validate the WFNS Spine Committee recommendations on the clinical and radiographic diagnosis of acute LBP.