Background: Myofascial pain dysfunction syndrome (MPDS) has been recognized as the most common, nontooth-related chronic orofacial pain condition that confronts dentists. A variety of therapies have been described in literature for its management. Objectives: This study is a prospective study carried out to evaluate the efficacy of occlusal splint therapy and compare it with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in the management of MPDS. Materials and Methods: Sixty patients who reported to the Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Pacific Dental College, Udaipur, since September 2009, in the age range of 17-55 years were included in the study and were randomly assigned to two equally sized groups, A and B. Group A patients received TENS therapy, whereas Group B patients received soft occlusal splint therapy. All the patients were evaluated for pain using visual analog scale (VAS), maximum comfortable mouth opening, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) clicking, and tenderness during rest and movement, as well as for the number of tender muscles at the time of diagnosis, after the first week of initiation of therapy, and every month for 3 months of follow-up. Results: There was a progressive decrease in VAS, number of tender muscles, TMJ clicking, and tenderness with various jaw movements, and there was a significant improvement in mouth opening in patients on occlusal splint therapy during the follow-up period when compared with TENS therapy group. Conclusion: Occlusal splint therapy has better long-term results in reducing the symptoms of MPDS. It has better patient compliance, has fewer side effects, and is more cost-effective than TENS therapy; hence, it can be chosen for the treatment of patients with MPDS.
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.
CITATION STYLE
Tripathi, P., Mathur, H., Tripathi, S., Saxena, V., & Ahmed, J. (2019). Miseries and remedies of myofascial pain dysfunction syndrome: Comparative study. Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine and Radiology, 31(3), 210–216. https://doi.org/10.4103/jiaomr.jiaomr_76_18