Comparison of short-latency trigeminal evoked potentials elicited by painful dental and gingival stimulation |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine, Department of Neurology, Division of Neurophysiology, Istanbul, Turkey;2. IDIBAPS. Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Villarroel 170 08024, Barcelona, Spain;3. Department of Neurology and Center of Clinical Neuroscience, Charles University, Prague 1st Faculty of Medicine and General University Hospital, Prague, Kateřinská 30, 12800 Prague 2, Czech Republic;4. Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome Polo Pontino ICOT, via Franco Faggiana 1668 04100, Latina, Italy;5. Department of Neurology, Hochzirl Hospital, A-6170 Zirl, Austria;6. Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Division of Medical Imaging, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Postal Box 52, FIN 20521 Turku, Finland;1. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics, and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Germany;2. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany;3. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, KJF Klinik Josefinum, Kapellenstrasse 30, 86154, Augsburg, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | Painful stimulation of tooth pulp and of the maxillary gingiva was undertaken in 16 volunteers. Short-latency evoked potentials (15–20 msec) were recorded over 800 trials in each case at F3-P3 of F4-P4, and the resultant averaged wave forms were compared. The gingival wave was distinct in all subjects and could be averaged across subjects while the dental waves were either noise or very inconsistent over subjects. Averaging of the dental wave forms across subjects yielded an uninterpretable result. It was clear that dental evoked potentials could not be recorded at these sites. These findings could be explained by either or both of two hypotheses: (1) dental afferents are predominantly small fiber, nociceptive end organs that conduct more slowly than soft tissue afferents whereas gingival stimulation activates both large and small fiber populations; and (2) dental representation in somatosensory cortex is different and phylogenetically more primitive than that of neighboring soft tissue. Therefore, the location of the generator sites in cortex and the orientation of the dipole may be different for dental than for gingival wave forms. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
