Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of disability, the most common form of chronic disease in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), and the most severe disease type of temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The etiology of TMD is multifactorial, considering parafunctional habits, sleep bruxism, or sleep disturbance as common factors. Insomnia and apnea are the two most frequent forms of sleep disorders in TMD patients. Due to this, the objective of this systematic review was to highlight whether there is currently scientific evidence in the literature describing that patients with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ-OA) are associated with increased sleep disorders or impaired sleep quality. Methods: This systematic review was completed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement and was registered with PROSPERO prior to completion of the main search. Original observational studies that analyze the association of sleep disorders and sleep quality in patients with TMJ-OA were included in the present review. Results: 770 studies were screened by abstract and title according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and finally, 7 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis and a total of 772 patients diagnosed with TMJ-OA. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to indicate that patients with TMJ OA are associated with increased sleep disorders or poorer sleep quality.

Miguel de Pedro, DDS, PhD(c)/Rosa Mar?a L?pez-Pintor, DDS, PhD/Jos? Luis de la Hoz-Aizpurua, MD, DMD, MS/Elisabeth Casa?as, DDS, PhD/Gonzalo Hern?ndez, DDS, MS, PhD: Aims: To evaluate the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for the therapeutic management of neuropathic orofacial pain. Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases up to March 8, 2018, using terms such as low-level laser therapy, neuropathic pain, orofacial pain, neuralgia, neuropathy, and all the entities described in section 13 of the International Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition. The primary outcome was measurement of pain intensity. Results: A total of 997 studies were obtained with the initial search; 13 (8 randomized controlled trials, 2 prospective studies, and 3 case series) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed for data extraction. Three provided data for the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia, 1 for occipital neuralgia, and 10 for burning mouth syndrome. All studies showed a reduction in pain intensity (most of them significant). The different studies analyzed LLLT alone and compared to placebo, to another treatment, or to different LLLT application protocols. Conclusion: LLLT seems to be effective as a treatment option for different neuropathic orofacial pain entities such as trigeminal neuralgia, occipital neuralgia, and burning mouth syndrome as a single or combined treatment. However, more quality studies assessing all outcome measures of chronic pain are needed in the medium and long terms. Furthermore, due to the lack of standardization of the application technique, more well-designed studies are required to confirm the results of this systematic review.

The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate which salivary biomarkers are altered in patients with burning mouth syndrome (BMS) compared to a control group (CG). A comprehensive literature search was conducted in four databases. Case–control studies evaluating salivary biomarkers in BMS patients were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle‐Ottawa tool. RevMan was used for meta‐analysis. Seventeen studies were selected. The included studies collected 54 different biomarkers. Of these biomarkers, only three (cortisol, α‐amylase, and dehydroepiandrosterone) were analyzed in three or more studies. Dehydroepiandrosterone obtained contradictory results among the studies. However, cortisol and α‐amylase levels were found to be higher in BMS patients. Cortisol was the only biomarker which could be included for meta‐analysis. Cortisol levels were significantly higher in the BMS group compared to the CG (Mean Difference = 0.39; 95% CI [0.14–0.65]; p = 0.003). In conclusion, different studies investigated salivary biomarkers in patients with BMS compared to a CG, with controversial results. Meta‐analysis, confirmed by trial‐sequential analysis, showed how cortisol levels were significantly higher in BMS. Cortisol emerges as an interesting salivary biomarker in BMS, but future properly designed studies are needed to evaluate its role in diagnosis and/or response to treatment.