The Effect of Applied Force on Two-Point Discrimination Threshold in the Trigeminal Region

Aims: To determine the effect of alterations in applied force on the two-point discrimination (TPD) threshold and to evaluate whether these effects were gender- or site-dependent. Methods: A total of 62 healthy adults were enrolled in the study and divided into two groups based on gender (men and women, n = 31 each). The TPD test was performed using a modified compass on the forehead, upper labium, and lower labium, and each site was tested with Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments (SWMs) of sizes 4.56, 5.07, and 5.46 that exerted bending forces of 6, 10, and 26 g, respectively. The differences in thresholds according to alterations in the applied forces were evaluated for different genders and sites. Results: Both gender groups showed a significant decrease in TPD thresholds with the 5.46-size monofilament than with the 4.56- or 5.07-size monofilaments. This decrease was more apparent on the forehead regardless of gender. Conclusion: These findings suggest that increased intensity of mechanical stimuli could increase tactile acuity as measured by the TPD test.

face;force;gender;spatial acuity;two-point discrimination

1. Won SY, Kim HK, Kim ME, Kim KS. Two-point discrimina- tion values vary depending on test site, sex and test modali- ty in the orofacial region: A preliminary study. J Appl Oral Sci 2017;25:427–435.

2. Lundborg G, Rosén B. The two-point discrimination test— Time for a re-appraisal? J Hand Surg Br 2004;29:418–422.

3. Catley MJ, Tabor A, Wand BM, Moseley GL. Assessing tactile acuity in rheumatology and musculoskeletal medicine—How reliable are two-point discrimination tests at the neck, hand, back and foot? Rheumatology (Oxford) 2013;52:1454–1461.

4. Levin LS, Regan N, Pearsall G, Nunley JA. Variations in two-point discrimination as a function of terminal probes. Microsurgery 1989;10:236–241.

5. Williams PS, Basso DM, Case-Smith J, Nichols-Larsen DS. Development of the Hand Active Sensation Test: Reliability and validity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87:1471–1477.

6. Bell-Krotoski JA, Buford WL Jr. The force/time relationship of clinically used sensory testing instruments. J Hand Ther 1997;10:297–309.

7. Jacobs R, Wu CH, Van Loven K, Desnyder M, Kolenaar B, Van Steenberghed D. Methodology of oral sensory tests. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:720–730.

8. Zhang Z, Tannan V, Holden JK, Dennis RG, Tommerdahl M. A quantitative method for determining spatial discriminative ca- pacity. Biomed Eng Online 2008;7:12.

9. Matos R, Wang K, Jensen JD, et al. Quantitative sensory testing in the trigeminal region: Site and gender differences. J Orofac Pain 2011;25:161–169.

10. Wang Y, Mo X, Zhang J, Fan Y, Wang K, Peter S. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) in the orofacial region of healthy Chinese: Influence of site, gender and age. Acta Odontol Scand 2018;76:58–63.

11. Suzuki K, Baad-Hansen L, Pigg M, Svensson P. Assessment of mechanical pain thresholds in the orofacial region: A com- parison between pinprick stimulators and electronic Von Frey Device. J Oral Facial Pain Headache 2016;30:338–345.

12. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007;39:175–191.

13. Moberg E. Two-point discrimination test. A valuable part of hand surgical rehabilitation, e.g. in tetraplegia. Scand J Rehabil Med 1990;22:127–134.

14. Dellon AL, Mackinnon SE, Crosby PM. Reliability of two- point discrimination measurements. J Hand Surg Am 1987; 12:693–696.

15. Ghazni NF, Cahill CM, Stroman PW. Tactile sensory and pain networks in the human spinal cord and brain stem mapped by means of functional MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:661–667.

16. Abraira VE, Ginty DD. The sensory neurons of touch. Neuron 2013;79:618–639.

17. Roudaut Y, Lonigro A, Coste B, Hao J, Delmas P, Crest M. Touch sense: Functional organization and molecular deter- minants of mechanosensitive receptors. Channels (Austin) 2012;6:234–245.

18. Vriens JP, van der Glas HW. The relationship of facial two- point discrimination to applied force under clinical test condi- tions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002;109:943–952.

19. Steenbergen P, Buitenweg JR, Trojan J, Veltink PH. Tactile lo- calization depends on stimulus intensity. Exp Brain Res 2014; 232:597–607.

20. Besné I, Descombes C, Breton L. Effect of age and anatomi- cal site on density of sensory innervation in human epidermis. Arch Dermatol 2002;138:1445–1450.

21. Nolano M, Provitera V, Caporaso G, et al. Cutaneous inner- vation of the human face as assessed by skin biopsy. J Anat 2013;222:161–169.

22. Pasluosta C, Kiele P, Stieglitz T. Paradigms for restoration of somatosensory feedback via stimulation of the peripheral ner- vous system. Clin Neurophysiol 2018;129:851–862.

23. Rolke R, Baron R, Maier C, et al. Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): Standardized protocol and reference values. Pain 2006;123: 231–243.

24. Haloua MH, Sierevelt I, Theuvenet WJ. Semmes-weinstein monofilaments: Influence of temperature, humidity, and age. J Hand Surg Am 2011;36:1191–1196.

25. Meirte J, Moortgat P, Truijen S, et al. Interrater and intrarater reliability of the Semmes Weinstein aesthesiometer to as- sess touch pressure threshold in burn scars. Burns 2015;41: 1261–1267.

26. Greenspan JD, McGillis SL. Stimulus features relevant to the perception of sharpness and mechanically evoked cutaneous pain. Somatosens Mot Res 1991;8:137–147.

27. Kaneko A, Asai N, Kanda T. The influence of age on pressure perception of static and moving two-point discrimination in normal subjects. J Hand Ther 2005;18:421–424.

28. Lautenbacher S, Kunz M, Strate P, Nielsen J, Arendt-Nielsen L. Age effects on pain thresholds, temporal summation and spatial summation of heat and pressure pain. Pain 2005; 115:410–418.