Saliva is often neglected as a body fluid of diagnostic or prognostic value, even though generally well accepted by the patients. This is due to lack of a standardized collection procedure. The aim of this study was to identify the ideal saliva collection technique and develop new sensitive methods to detect and analyse markers related to pain in healthy pain-free subjects. Plasma and five different saliva collection approached was evaluated during strictly controlled conditions. Levels of nerve growth factor (NGF), calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and brain derived neurotropic factor (BDNF) were determined using novel western blotting based technology. Glutamate and substance P (SP) was determined using commercial available methods. Several new isoforms were found for NGF, CGRP and BDNF in saliva. The isoform pattern showed significant variation in both expression and chemiluminescence levels between different collection methods. New sensitive methods to study pain related markers in saliva were developed in this study. Furthermore, we are first to demonstrate a correlation between the Glutamate concentration in stimulated whole saliva and blood. However, the fundamental conclusion drawn is the importance of consistency in the collection method.

Determination of the variability in the salivary proteome is a prerequisite for the development of saliva as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in particular physiological states. In this context, it is important that technical variability induced by sample collection and processing is kept at minimum to be able to reproducibly assess variability in states of health and disease. In the current study, the proteome profile in unstimulated and stimulated whole, parotid and sublingual saliva was investigated using two-dimensional gel electrophoresis. Saliva samples were structurally collected from ten examined and characterized healthy individuals during the exactly same conditions. The results demonstrated that different collection methods provide clear differences in the snapshot of the salivary proteome and also in the relative amount of specific proteins. The variable nature of the salivary proteome suggests that different approaches may have to be adopted when studying its composition or its possible role as an indicator for particular physiological states. The results emphasize the importance of consistency when collecting saliva samples for proteomic analysis.

Background: Different pain syndromes may be characterized by different profiles of mediators reflecting pathophysiological differences, and these alterations may be measured in a simple saliva sample. The aims of the current study were to compare concentration of glutamate, serotonin (5-HT), nerve growth factor (NGF), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), and substance P (SP) in saliva and plasma from a well-defined group of patients with chronic temporomandibular disorders myalgia (TMD-myalgia) with a group of pain-free controls, and further investigate the relationship between these markers and clinical characteristics. Methods: Patients diagnosed according to the diagnostic criteria for TMD (n = 39), and matched healthy pain-free controls (n = 39) were included. Stimulated whole saliva and plasma samples were collected in the morning. Glutamate was analysed using a colorimetric assay, and 5-HT and SP were analysed by commercially available ELISA. Levels of NGF and BDNF were determined using multiplex electrochemiluminescence assay panel. Results: Patients expressed higher salivary and plasma levels of glutamate (saliva: 40.22 ± 13.23 μmol/L; plasma: 30.31 ± 18.73 μmol/L) than controls (saliva: 33.24 ± 11.27 μmol/L; plasma: 20.41 ± 15.96 μmol/L) (p < 0.05). Salivary NGF (0.319 ± 0.261 pg/ml) and BDNF (3.57 ± 1.47 pg/ml) were lower in patients compared to controls (NGF: 0.528 ± 0.477 pg/ml; BDNF 4.62 ± 2.51 pg/ml)(p’s < 0.05). Contrary, plasma BDNF, was higher in patients (263.33 ± 245.13 pg/ml) than controls (151.81 ± 125.90 pg/ml) (p < 0.05). 5-HT was undetectable in saliva. Neither plasma 5-HT, nor SP levels differed between groups. BDNF and NGF concentrations correlated to levels of psychological distress (p < 0.0005). Conclusion: The higher levels of salivary and plasma glutamate in patients with TMD-myalgia compared to controls strengthens its importance in the pathophysiology of TMD-myalgia. However, the lack of correlation to pain levels question its role as a putative biomarker. Patients with TMD-myalgia further had lower levels of salivary NGF and BDNF, but higher plasma BDNF. These results and their correlations to psychological distress warrant further investigations.

Objective Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) comprise a cluster of conditions with a wide range of etiological factors that causes pain and discomfort in the masticatory muscles (TMD-M) and temporomandibular joints (TMD-J). More than 50% of the patients with TMD report regular usage of drugs. However, there is still no consensus, nor is there any evidence-based support for clinicians when choosing between different drugs. Therefore, this systematic review, including a network meta-analysis (NMA), aimed to evaluate the scientific evidence and discuss the pharmacological treatment options available to treat painful TMD. Method An electronic search was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacological treatments for TMD-M and/or TMD-J, published until 6 April 2023. Since only 11 articles could be used for an NMA regarding TMD-M, a narrative synthesis was also performed for all 40 included RCTs. The quality of evidence was rated according to Cochrane’s tool for assessing risk of bias, while the certainty of evidence was rated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results When it comes to TMD-M, evidence arises for wet needling therapies with BTX-A, granisetron, and PRP as well as muscle relaxants. For TMD-J, evidence points toward pharmacological treatment approaches including non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and glucocorticosteriods (for inflammatory conditions) as well as hyaluronic acid and dextrose. Conclusions The evidence clearly indicates that the pharmacological treatment approaches differ between TMD-M and TMD-J. Therefore, it is of great importance to first try to uncover each patient’s individual and multifactorial etiology and then employ a multifaceted treatment strategy, including pharmacological treatment approaches.

Objective Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) encompass several conditions that cause pain and impair function of the masticatory muscles (M-TMDs) and temporomandibular joints. There is a large interest among clinicians and researchers in the use of botulinum toxin-A (BoNT-A) as a treatment for M-TMD. However, due to the lack of consistent evidence regarding the efficacy as well as adverse events of BoNT-A, clinical decision making is challenging. Therefore, this umbrella review aimed to systematically assess systematic reviews (SRs) evaluating BoNT-A treatment effects on pain intensity, mandibular movements, and adverse events in patients with M-TMDs. Method An electronic search was undertaken in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Epistemonikos, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP to identify SRs investigating BoNT-A effects on M-TMDs, published from the inception of each database until 6 December 2023. The quality of evidence was rated according to the critical appraisal checklist developed by the umbrella review methodology working group. Only high-quality SRs were included. Results In total, 18 SRs were included. BoNT-A was shown to be more effective than placebo to reduce pain intensity, but not compared to standard treatments. Additionally, BoNT-A was not superior to placebo or standard treatments regarding improvement of mandibular movements. BoNT-A was considered to have a higher risk for adverse events on muscle and bony tissue compared with other treatments. Conclusion The synthesis in this umbrella review provides the highest level of evidence present. Taken together, there are indications of effectiveness of BoNT-A for treatment of M-TMDs, supported by moderate evidence. However, considering the risk of causing serious adverse events, treatment with BoNT-A is recommended to be the last treatment alternative.