Spatial and Temporal Assessment of Orofacial Somatosensory Sensitivity: A Methodological Study

Aims: To evaluate the sensitivity and reproducibility of a multimodal psychophysical technique for the assessment of both spatial and temporal changes in somatosensory function after an infraorbital nerve block. Methods: Sixteen healthy volunteers with a mean (± SD) age of 22.5 ± 3.4 years participated in 2 identical experimental sessions separated by 2 weeks. The subjects rated the perceived intensity of standardized nonpainful tactile, painful pinprick, warm, and cold stimuli applied to 25 points in 5 X 5 matrices in the infraorbital region of each side. The reproducibility of single points was tested, and a mean difference of 1.4 ± 0.5 was found. A 0-50-100 numerical rating scale (NRS) with 50 denoting “just barely painful” was used. A modified ice hockey mask with adjustable settings was developed as a template to allow stimulation of the same points in the 2 sessions. Assessment of somatosensory function was carried out before the injection (baseline) and after 30 and 60 minutes on both the anesthetized and contralateral (control) side. In addition, the applicability of the psychophysical techniques was tested in pilot experiments in 2 patients before maxillary osteotomy and 3 months afterward. Results: The overall analysis of mean NRS scores, number of points, and center-of-gravity coordinates for all stimulus modalities showed no significant main effects of session. Post-hoc tests for all stimulus modalities demonstrated significantly lower mean NRS scores and significantly more points (hyposensitivity) at 30 and 60 minutes postinjection compared to baseline values on the injection side (Tukey tests: P < .002). In the 2 maxillary osteotomy patients, the psychophysical techniques could successfully be applied, and bilateral hyposensitivity to all stimulus modalities was demonstrated at the 3-month follow-up. Conclusion: The present findings indicate that the psychophysical method is sufficiently reproducible, with no major differences between sessions in healthy subjects. All stimulus modalities demonstrated adequate sensitivity. Furthermore, measurement of points in 5 X 5 matrices allowed a spatial description of somatosensory sensitivity. This method may be valuable for studies on changes in somatosensory sensitivity following trauma or orthognathic surgery on the maxilla.

local anesthesia; orthognathic surgery; psychophysics; somatosensory sensitivity; trigeminal physiology

1. Bell WH. Le Fort 1 osteotomy for correction of maxillary deformities. J Oral Surg 1975;33:412–426.

2. Epker BN, Schendel SA. Total maxillary surgery. Int J Oral Surg 1980;9:1–24.

3. Fisch LC, Epker BN, Sullivan CR. Orthognathic surgery: The correction of dentofacial deformities. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993;51:28–41.

4. Epker BN. The surgical-orthodontic correction of maxillary deficiency. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1978;46:171–205.

5. Bell WH, Jacobs JD. Surgical orthodontic correction of moderate mandibular deficiency. Am J Orthod 1979;75:481–506.

6. Pannula K, Finne K, Oikarinen K. Incidence of complications and problems related to orthognathic surgery: A review of 655patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;59:1128–1136.

7. Maurer P, Otto C, Eckert AW, Schubert J. Complications in surgical treatment of malocclusions. Report of 50 years experience. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir 2001;5:357–361.

8. Al-Din OF, Coghlan KM, Magennis P. Sensory nerve disturbance following Le Fort I osteotomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;25:13–19.

9. Rosenberg A, Sailer HF. A prospective study on changes in the sensibility of the oral mucosa and the mucosa of the upper lip after Le Fort I osteotomy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1994;22:286–293.

10. Posnick JC, al-Qattan MM, Pron G. Facial sensibility in adolescents with and without clefts 1 year after undergoing Le Fort I osteotomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 1994;94:431–435.

11. de Jongh M, Barnard D, Birnie D. Sensory nerve morbidity following Le Fort I osteotomy. J Maxillofac Surg 1986;14:10–13.

12. Panula K, Finne K, Oikarinen K. Incidence of complications and problems related to orthognathic surgery: A review of 655 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;59:1128–1136.

13. Schultze-Mosgau S, Krems H, Ott R, Neukam FW. A prospective electromyographic and computer-aided thermal sensitivity assessment of nerve lesions after sagittal split osteotomy and Le Fort I osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;59:128–138.

14. Kahnberg KE, Engstrom H. Recovery of maxillary sinus and tooth sensibility after Le Fort I osteotomy. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1987;25:68–73.

15. Van Boven RW, Johnson KO. A psychophysical study of the mechanisms of recovery following nerve injury in humans. Brain 1994;117:149–167.

16. Essick GK, Patel S, Trulsson M. Mechanosensory and thermosensory changes across the border of impaired sensitivity to pinprick after mandibular nerve injury. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;60:1250–1266.

17. Svensson P, Baad-Hansen L, Juhl GI, Thygesen TH, Jensen TS. Overview on tools and methods to assess trigeminal neuropathic pain. J Orofac Pain 2004;18: 332–338.

18. Cruccu G, Anand P, Attal N, et al. EFNS guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment. Eur J Neurol 2004;11: 153–162.

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

20. 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.

21. Roda RS, Blanton PL. The anatomy of local anesthesia. Tex Dent J 1998;115:15–25.

22. Gracely RH, Lota L, Walter DJ, Dubner R. A multiple random staircase method of psychophysical pain assessment. Pain 1988;32:55–63.

23. Price DD, Bennett GJ, Rafii A. Psychophysical observations on patients with neuropathic pain relieved by a sympathetic block. Pain 1989;36:273–288.

24. Svensson P, Graven-Nielsen T, Arendt-Nielsen L. Mechanical hyperesthesia of human facial skin induced by tonic painful stimulation of jaw muscles. Pain 1998;74:93–100.

25. Ridding MC, Brouwer B, Miles TS, Pitcher JB, Thompson PD. Changes in muscle responses to stimulation of the motor cortex induced by peripheral nerve stimulation in human subjects. Exp Brain Res 2000;131:135–143.

26. Huang JH, Thalhammer JG, Raymond SA, Stirchartz GR. Susceptibility to lidocaine of impulses in different somatosensory afferent nerve fibers of rat sciatic nerve. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1997;282:802–811.

27. Staiman A, Seeman P. Conduction-blocking concentrations of anesthetics increase with nerve axon diameter: Studies with alcohol, lidocaine and tetrodotoxinon single myelinated fibers. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1977;201: 340–349.

28. Khullar SM, Brodin P, Barkvoll P, Haanaes HR. Preliminary study of low-level laser for treatment of longstanding sensory aberrations in the inferior alveolar nerve. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:2–7.

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

30. Santiago S, Ferrer T, Espinosa ML. Neurophysiological studies of thin myelinated (A delta) and unmyelinated (C) fibers: Application to peripheral neuropathies. Neurophysiol Clin 2000;30:27–42.

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