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.

Background Although many children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) develop arthritis and deformity of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), many go undetected. Objective This study investigates whether findings from patient history and clinical examination using the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) can be used to diagnose TMJ involvement. Methods As a part of the screening program, 59 consecutive JIA patients age 7–14 years underwent a clinical examination according to RDC/TMD including self-reported orofacial pain and pain related to jaw function, and cone beam computer tomography (CBCT). Data were obtained from the patient's medical charts. Patients were divided into two groups based on the presence or absence of TMJ deformities on CBCT. Results Self-reported TMJ symptoms before inclusion were reported by 52% of children with and 18% of children without TMJ deformities on CBCT (p = .020). On a group level, the maximum unassisted (mouth) opening (MUO) with and without pain was within the normal range, but children with TMJ deformities showed a significantly smaller MUO with pain (p = .035). A diagnosis of osteoarthritis and osteoarthrosis was more prevalent in children with TMJ deformities. Conclusion Although there were few differences between children with and without radiographic TMJ deformities, self-reported previous TMJ symptoms and reduced MUO with pain could indicate the presence of TMJ involvement. However, radiographic examinations are needed to confirm TMJ involvement. Thus, this study indicates that the RDC/TMD protocol is a blunt tool when targeting TMJ involvement in JIA.

Monitoring the immune system’s regulation and signaling using saliva could be of interest for clinicians and researchers. Saliva, a biofluid with close exchange with serum, is influenced by circadian variance and oral factors such as masticatory function. This study investigated the detectability and concentration of cytokines and chemokines in saliva in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) as well as saliva flow and the influence of orofacial pain on saliva flow. Of the 60 participants (7–14 years old) enrolled, 30 had a diagnosis of JIA and active disease, and 30 were sex- and age-matched healthy controls. Demographic data and three validated questions regarding presence of orofacial pain and dysfunction were recorded. Stimulated whole saliva was collected and analyzed using a customized R&D bead-based immunoassay with 21 targeted biomarkers. Fourteen of these were detectable and showed similar levels in both children with JIA and controls: TNF-alpha, TNFRSF1B, MMP-2, MMP-3, IL-1alpha, IL-1beta, IL-6R alpha, IL-8, S100A8, CCL2, CCL3, IL-10, CCL11, and CXCL9. In addition, there was no difference in salivary flow rate between groups, but there was an association between orofacial pain and reduced saliva flow rate for both groups.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol id: 2010/2089-31/2.