The Utility of Clinical Neurophysiological and Quantitative Sensory Testing for Trigeminal Neuropathy

This article reviews the utility of neurophysiological recordings and quantitative sensory testing (QST) in providing sensitive, quantitative, and objective tests for the diagnosis and localization of damage to the trigeminal nerve. Electromyography and record-ings of the masseter reflex and compound muscle action potential evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation or direct electrical stimulation of the masseteric nerve can be of value in evaluating the function of 􀀁 motor neurons supplying the muscles of mastica-tion. Orthodromic recording of the sensory action potential and trigeminal somatosensory-evoked potential recording with the near-nerve stimulation technique are sensitive tools for the investi-gation of trigeminal sensory A􀀂 afferents, whereas recordings of polysynaptic trigeminal brainstem reflexes and tactile QST are less sensitive. At late stages of recovery, the blink reflex and masseter inhibitory reflex are often normal, but at earlier stages, the blink reflex recording has good prognostic value, and the presence of a reflex response may confirm continuity of the nerve trunk after partial laceration. Trigeminal small-fiber function (A􀀃 and C) can be studied with thermal QST of the cool, warm, heat pain, and cold pain detection thresholds or with laser-evoked potential recording. Thermal QST may remain abnormal years after axonal damage and aids in the diagnosis of late sequelae of trigeminal nerve injury. In a study of the diagnostic value of neurography, blink reflex and thermal QST, and various commonly used clinical sensory tests, neurophysiologic tests and thermal QST had better sensitivity (50% to 88% vs 40% to 59%) and negative predictive values (78% to 100% vs 70% to 74%) compared to clinical examination, whereas the specificity (55% to 100%) and positive predictive values (48% to 73%) were similar. At 1 year after trigeminal nerve injury, the risk of a false negative finding with clinical sensory testing was 94%, whereas the combination of nerve conduction recordings and thermal QST increased the diag-nostic yield to 100% in patients with long-standing postsurgical sensory alteration. In conclusion, clinical neurophysiological recordings and QST improve the diagnostic accuracy for trigemi-nal neuropathy.

neuropathy; neurophysiologic examination; quantitative sensory testing; trigeminal nerve

1. Zuniga JR, Meyer RA, Gregg JM, Miloro M, Davis LF. The accuracy of clinical neurosensory testing for nerve injury diagnosis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;56:2–8.

2. Robinson PP. Observations of the recovery of sensation following inferior alveolar nerve injuries. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1988;26:177–189.

3. Robinson PP, Boissonade FM, Loescher AR, et al. Peripheral mechanisms for the initiation of pain following trigeminal nerve injury. J Orofac Pain 2004;18:287–292.

4. Selzer ME. Regeneration of peripheral nerve. In: Sumner AJ (ed). The Physiology of Peripheral Nerve Disease. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1980:358–431.

5. Sunderland S. The anatomy and physiology of nerve injury. Muscle Nerve 1990;13:771–784.

6. Nurmikko T. Sensory dysfunction in postherpetic neuralgia. In: Boivie J, Hansson P, Lindblom U (eds). Progress in Pain Research and Management. Vol 3: Touch, temperature, and pain in health and disease: Mechanisms and assessments. Seattle: IASP Press, 1994:133–141.

7. Cruccu G, Deuschl G. The clinical use of brainstem reflexes and hand-muscle reflexes. Clin Neurophysiol 2000;11:371–387.

8. Aramideh M, Ongerboer de Visser BW. Brainstem reflexes: Electrodiagnostic techniques, physiology, normative data, and clinical applications. Muscle Nerve 2002; 26:14–30.

9. Jääskeläinen SK. Clinical neurophysiology and quantitative sensory testing in the investigation of orofacial pain and sensory function. J Orofac Pain 2004;18:85–107.

10. Jääskeläinen SK, Peltola JK, Forssell K, Vähätalo K. Evaluating the function of the inferior alveolar nerve during mandibular sagittal split osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;53:269–279.

11. Jääskeläinen SK. A new technique for recording sensory conduction velocity of the inferior alveolar nerve. Muscle Nerve 1999;22:455–459.

12. Liguori R, Cevoli S, Montagna P. Electroneurographic investigation of the mandibular nerve in lingual neuropathy. Muscle Nerve 1998;21:410–412.

13. Leandri M, Parodi CI, Favale E. Normative data on scalp responses evoked by infraorbital nerve stimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1988;71:415–421.

14. Teerijoki-Oksa T, Jääskeläinen S, Forssell K, Virtanen A, Forssell H. An evaluation of clinical and electrophysiologic tests in nerve injury diagnosis after mandibular sagit-tal split osteotomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;32: 15–23.

15. Jääskeläinen SK, Peltola JK. Clinical application of the blink reflex with stimulation of the mental nerve in lesions of the inferior alveolar nerve. Neurology 1994;44: 2356–2361.

16. Jääskeläinen SK, Peltola JK, Lehtinen R. The mental nerve blink reflex in the diagnosis of lesions of the inferior alveolar nerve following orthognathic surgery of the mandible. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;34:87–95.

17. Eliav E, Gracely RH, Nahlieli O, Benoliel R. Quantitative sensory testing in trigeminal nerve damage assessment. J Orofac Pain 2004;18:339–344.

18. Essick GK. Psychophysical assessment of patients with posttraumatic neuropathic trigeminal pain. J Orofac Pain 2004;18:345–354.

19. Svensson P, Baad-Hansen L, Juhl GI, Thygesen T. Over-view on tools and methods to assess neuropathic trigeminal pain. J Orofac Pain 2004;18:332–338.

20. Jääskeläinen SK, Teerijoki-Oksa T, Virtanen A, Forssell H. Sensory regeneration after intraoperatively verified trigeminal nerve injury. Neurology 2004;62:1951–1957.

21. Westermark A, Englesson L, Bongenhielm U. Neuro-sensory function after sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible: A comparison between subjective evaluation and objective assessment. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1999;14:268–275.

22. Bennett GJ. Neuropathic pain in the orofacial region: Clinical and research challenges. J Orofac Pain 2004;18: 281–286.

23. Dubner R, Ren K. Brain stem mechanisms of persistent pain following injury. J Orofac Pain 2004;18:299–305.

24. Iwata K, Tsuboi Y, Shima A, et al. Central neuronal changes after nerve injury: Neuroplastic influences of injury and aging. J Orofac Pain 2004;18:293–298.

25. Cruccu G, Pennisi E, Truini A, et al. Unmyelinated trigeminal pathways as assessed by laser stimuli in humans. Brain 2003;126:2246–2256.

26. Cunningham LL, Tiner BD, Clark GM, Bays RA, Keeling SD, Rugh JD. A comparison of questionnaire versus monofilament assessment of neurosensory deficit. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:454–459.

27. Majoie CBLM, Aramideh M, Hulsmans FJH, Castelijns JA, van Beek EJR, Ongerboer de Visser BW. Correlation between electromyographic reflex and MR imaging examinations of the trigeminal nerve. Am J Neuroradiol 1999; 20:1119–1125.

28. Teerijoki-Oksa T, Jääskeläinen SK, Forssell K, Forssell H. Recovery of nerve injury after mandibular sagittal split osteotomy. Diagnostic value of clinical and electrophysio-logic tests in the follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;33:134–140.

29. Jääskeläinen SK, Teerijoki-Oksa T, Forssell K, Vähätalo K, Peltola J, Forssell H. Intraoperative monitoring of the inferior alveolar nerve during mandibular sagittal-split osteotomy. Muscle Nerve 2000;23:368–375.

30. Teerijoki-Oksa T, Jääskeläinen S, Forssell K, et al. Risk factors of nerve injury during mandibular sagittal split osteotomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;31:33–39.