Agreement between quantitative and qualitative sensory testing of changes in oro‐facial somatosensory sensitivity. (16th November 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Agbaje, J.; De Laat, A.; Constantinus, P.; Svensson, P.; Baad‐Hansen, L.
• Is Part Of: Journal of oral rehabilitation. Volume 44:Number 1(2017:Jan.)
• Page Start: 30
• Page End: 42
• Publication Date: 2016-11-16
• Subjects: capsaicin -- placebo -- somatosensory profiling -- quantitative sensory testing -- qualitative sensory testing -- atypical odontalgia; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; 617
• DOI: 10.1111/joor.12455
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0305-182X

Abstract

Summary: Qualitative somatosensory testing (QualST) is a simple chairside test. It can be used to roughly assess the presence or absence of altered somatosensory function. To use QualST clinically, it is important to assess its agreement with quantitative sensory testing (QST). The aims of this study were to assess the agreement between QST and QualST when testing the modulation of facial sensitivity by capsaicin in healthy participants and to explore the agreement between QST and QualST in assessing the intraoral sensory function in clinical atypical odontalgia (AO) patients. Eighteen healthy pain‐free adults and data from 27 AO patients were included in the study. Thirteen QST and three QualST parameters were evaluated at each site. Z ‐scores were computed for healthy participants, and Loss‐Gain scores were created. The agreement observed between QST and QualST in participants with no alterations in facial sensation (placebo) was good, that is ranging from 89% to 94%. A poorer agreement was seen after capsaicin application in all test modalities with agreement ranging from 50% to 72%. The commonest misclassification observed was participants classified as normal according to QST, but hyper‐ or hyposensitive according to QualST after capsaicin application, especially for cold and pinprick. A similar trend was observed in AO patients where patients classified as normal using QST were misclassified as hypersensitive and in few patients as hyposensitive by QualST. In conclusion, the study showed that QualST may be used as a screening tool in the clinical setting, especially to show that subjects have normal sensory function.