Immediate Effect of Ultrasound on Bilateral Masseter Myalgia: A Randomized Dose-Response Clinical Trial

Aims: (1) To determine the dose-response relationship of therapeutic ultrasound for TMD-related pain in the masseter muscle among four doses comprised of two intensities (0.4 W/cm2 and 0.8 W/cm2) and two duty cycles (50% and 100%); and (2) to determine if therapeutic ultrasound applied to the masseter muscle would elicit a segmental effect on the ipsilateral temporalis muscle. Methods: A total of 28 adult women with bilateral myalgia were randomly allocated to one of the four intervention doses. Therapeutic ultrasound was applied on each side of the masseter sequentially for 5 minutes. The following outcomes were measured before and immediately after each intervention: self-reported pain score, pressure pain thresholds for the masseter and temporalis muscles, and intraoral temperature adjacent to the treated masseter. Results: Self-reported pain scores showed neither significant main effects nor significant interaction among the intensity or duty cycle doses (all P > .05). The change in the pressure pain threshold of the masseter showed a significant interaction (P = .02) attributed to the 0.4 W/cm2 and 100% duty cycle dose. Intraoral temperature was significantly increased and associated with the duty cycle (P = .01). A significant segmental effect of the pressure pain threshold of the temporalis was found for intensity (P = .01). Conclusion: There was an increase in the pressure pain threshold of the painful masticatory muscles and an increase in intraoral temperature adjacent to the treated area immediately after the use of ultrasound at 0.4 W/cm2 with a 100% duty cycle.

dose response; masseter myalgia; pressure pain threshold; randomized clinical trial; temporomandibular disorders; ultrasound therapy

1. Greene CS. Diagnosis and treatment of temporomandibular disorders: Emergence of a new “standard of care”. Quintessence Int 2010;41:623–624.

2. Drangsholt M, LeResche L. Temporomandibular disorder pain. In: Crombie IK, Croft PR, Linton SJ, Leresche L, Von Korff M (eds). Epidemiology of Pain: A Report of the Task Force on Epidemiology of the International Association for the Study of Pain. Seattle: IASP, 1999:203–233.

3. Slade GD, Bair E, By K, et al. Study methods, recruitment, sociodemographic findings, and demographic representativeness in the OPPERA study. J Pain 2011;12(suppl 11):T12–T26.

4. Schiffman E, Ohrbach R, Truelove E, et al. Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) for Clinical and Research Applications: Recommendations of the International RDC/TMD Consortium Network and Orofacial Pain Special Interest Group. J Oral Facial Pain Headache 2014;28:6–27.

5. Smith SB, Maixner DW, Greenspan JD, et al. Potential genetic risk factors for chronic TMD: Genetic associations from the OPPERA case control study. J Pain 2011;12(suppl 11):T92–T101.

6. Maixner W, Diatchenko L, Dubner R, et al. Orofacial pain prospective evaluation and risk assessment study–the OPPERA study. J Pain 2011;12(suppl 11):T4-11.e1-2.

7. List T, Axelsson S. Management of TMD: Evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:430–451.

8. Lehmann JF. The biophysical basis of biologic ultrasonic reactions with special reference to ultrasonic therapy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1953;34:139–151.

9. Erickson RI. Ultrasound-a useful adjunct in temporoman-dibular joint therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1964;18:176–179.

10. Armijo-Olivo S, Fuentes J, Muir I, Gross DP. Usage patterns and beliefs about therapeutic ultrasound by Canadian physical therapists: An exploratory population-based cross-sectional survey. Physiother Can 2013;65:289–299.

11. Gam AN, Johannsen F. Ultrasound therapy in musculoskeletal disorders: A meta-analysis. Pain 1995;63:85–91.

12. Warden SJ, McMeeken JM. Ultrasound usage and dosage in sports physiotherapy. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002;28:1075–1080.

13. Wong RA, Schumann B, Townsend R, Phelps CA. A survey of therapeutic ultrasound use by physical therapists who are orthopaedic certified specialists. Phys Ther 2007;87:986–994.

14. Allen RJ. Physical agents used in the management of chronic pain by physical therapists. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2006;17:315–345.

15. Baker KG, Robertson VJ, Duck FA. A review of therapeutic ultrasound: Biophysical effects. Phys Ther 2001;81:1351–1358.

16. Loyola-Sánchez A, Richardson J, MacIntyre NJ. Efficacy of ultrasound therapy for the management of knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010;18:1117–1126.

17. Robertson VJ. Dosage and treatment response in randomized clinical trials of therapeutic ultrasound. Phys Ther Sport 2002;3:124–133.

18. Robertson VJ, Baker KG. A review of therapeutic ultrasound: Effectiveness studies. Phys Ther 2001;81:1339–1350.

19. van der Windt DAWM, van der Heijden GJMG, van den Berg SGM, Ter Riet G, de Winter AF, Bouter LM. Ultrasound ther-apy for musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review. Pain 1999;81:257–271.

20. Xia P, Wang X, Lin Q, Cheng K, Li X. Effectiveness of ultrasound therapy for myofascial pain syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain Res 2017;10:545–555.

21. Srbely JZ, Dickey JP, Lowerison M, Edwards MA, Nolet PS, Wong LL. Stimulation of myofascial trigger points with ultrasound induces segmental antinociceptive effects: A random-ized controlled study. Pain 2008;139:260–266.

22. Hsieh YL. Reduction in induced pain by ultrasound may be caused by altered expression of spinal neuronal nitric oxide synthase-producing neurons. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:1311–1317.

23. Savernini Á, Savernini N, de Amaral FA, Romero TR, Duarte ID, de Castro MS. Assay of therapeutic ultrasound induced-antinociception in experimental trigeminal neuropathic pain. J Neurosci Res 2012;90:1639–1645.

24. Sato M, Motoyoshi M, Shinoda M, Iwata K, Shimizu N. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound accelerates nerve regeneration following inferior alveolar nerve transection in rats. Eur J Oral Sci 2016;124:246–250.

25. Kubanek J, Shukla P, Das A, Baccus SA, Goodman MB. Ultrasound elicits behavioral responses through mechanical effects on neurons and ion channels in a simple nervous system. J Neurosci 2018;38:3081–3091.

26. Srbely JZ, Dickey JP. Randomized controlled study of the antinociceptive effect of ultrasound on trigger point sensi-tivity: Novel applications in myofascial therapy? Clin Rehabil 2007;21:411–417.

27. Hauck M, Noronha Martins C, Borges Moraes M, et al. Comparison of the effects of 1MHz and 3MHz therapeutic ultrasound on endothelium-dependent vasodilation of humans: A randomised clinical trial. Physiotherapy 2019;105:120–125.

28. Demmink JH, Helders PJ, Hobaek H, Enwemeka C. The variation of heating depth with therapeutic ultrasound frequency in physiotherapy. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003;29:113–118.

29. Michlovitz SL, Bellew JW, Nolan T Jr (eds). Modalities for Therapeutic Intervention, ed 5. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis, 2012.

30. Bellew JW, Michlovitz SL, Nolan Jr TP (eds). Modalities for Therapeutic Intervention, ed 6. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis, 2016.

31. Grey K. Distribution of treatment time in physiotherapeutic application of ultrasound. Physiotherapy 2003;89:696–707.

32. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013.

33. Hsieh YL. Effects of ultrasound and diclofenac phonophoresis on inflammatory pain relief: Suppression of inducible nitric oxide synthase in arthritic rats. Phys Ther 2006;86:39–49.

34. Hussain H, Crow H, Gonzalez Y, McCall WD Jr. Immediate effect of continuous ultrasound vs sham ultrasound for bilateral masseter myalgia: A double-blinded trial. J Oral Facial Pain Headache 2018;32:304–308.