These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Reliability of an intraoral extension for intraoral palpation and assessment of mechanical sensitivity of the temporal tendon.
    Author: Renner N, Costa YM, Castrillon EE, Exposto FG.
    Journal: J Oral Rehabil; 2024 Sep; 51(9):1848-1861. PubMed ID: 38767032.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The temporal tendon is a structure often compromised in patients suffering from temporomandibular disorders (TMD), yet its intraoral location makes a standardised assessment difficult. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the variability and accuracy to target force of a newly designed intraoral extension for a palpometer device (Palpeter, Sunstar Suisse) when compared to manual palpation, in addition to clinically assessing the mechanical sensitivity and referred sensations of the temporal tendon in healthy individuals. METHODS: Experiment 1: 12 individuals were asked to target on a scale 0.5, 1 and 2 kg, for 2 and 5 s by using five different methods (Palpeter, Palpeter with three different extension shapes and manual palpation). Experiment 2: 10 healthy participants were recruited for a randomised double-blinded assessment by applying pressure of 0.5, 1 and 2 kg to the right temporal tendon with the three extensions and manual palpation. Participants rated the intensity of their sensation/pain on a 0-50-100 numeric rating scale (NRS), unpleasantness on a 0-100 NRS, and if present, they rated and drew the location of referred sensations. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used in both experiments to compare differences between palpation methods. Tukey's HSD tests were used for the post hoc comparisons, and p values below .05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Experiment 1: The extensions showed no significant differences between them regarding reliability and accuracy for all forces and durations (p > .05). The manual method was significantly less reliable and accurate when compared to the other methods (p < .05). Experiment 2: There were no significant differences between the Palpeter extensions regarding pain intensity or unpleasantness NRS scores (p > .05), but all the extensions had significantly increased pain intensity and unpleasantness when compared to manual palpation (p < .05). Similarly, the frequency of referred sensations was similar between extensions but increased when compared to manual palpation. CONCLUSIONS: The new Palpeter extensions proved to be significantly more accurate and have lower test-retest variability than the manual method in a non-clinical setting. Clinically, they showed no significant differences in NRS scores for pain intensity nor unpleasantness, with no major differences in referred sensations, making any of the extensions suitable for clinical testing of the temporal tendon in future studies.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]