High-Frequency Stimulation for Neuropathic Orofacial Pain

Neuropathic orofacial pain, often described as burning or shock-like, arises from nerve dysfunction rather than tissue damage. It’s challenging to treat, with medications like carbamazepine only helping about 70% of patients – and even then, side effects or tolerance can limit their use. Surgical options can work for some but carry risks like permanent numbness.

High-frequency stimulation offers a non-surgical alternative by targeting pain pathways with electrical or magnetic energy. Two key methods – repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and kilohertz high-frequency electrical stimulation (KHES) – have shown promise in reducing pain and improving quality of life for those who don’t respond to standard treatments. rTMS uses magnetic pulses to influence brain activity, while KHES blocks pain signals in peripheral nerves. Clinical trials report pain relief in up to 85% of patients, with benefits lasting weeks to months.

However, barriers like cost, equipment access, and variability in patient outcomes remain. Research is still needed to refine treatment protocols, understand long-term effects, and identify who benefits most. For now, high-frequency stimulation provides a promising option for managing chronic neuropathic orofacial pain when other treatments fall short.

Brain Stimulation for Face Pain-Mayo Clinic

What Is High-Frequency Stimulation?

When systemic medications fall short in managing pain, high-frequency stimulation offers a different path. Instead of merely masking symptoms with drugs, this approach uses electrical or magnetic energy to adjust the way pain signals are processed in the nervous system. By targeting specific pain pathways, it aims to reduce discomfort while avoiding the broader side effects often associated with medications like anticonvulsants.

Two main techniques stand out for addressing neuropathic orofacial pain: repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and kilohertz high-frequency electrical stimulation (KHES). While each method works differently, both focus on disrupting the abnormal nerve activity that drives pain.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS)

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation uses magnetic pulses to stimulate parts of the brain involved in pain regulation. A magnetic coil placed on the scalp generates currents that reach about 1.5–2 centimetres into the brain, activating specific regions without the need for surgery, implants, or needles. Patients simply sit as the device delivers controlled pulses.

For neuropathic pain, rTMS typically operates at frequencies between 5 and 20 Hz, with higher frequencies encouraging more pronounced changes in brain activity. Two key brain areas are often targeted: the motor cortex (M1) and the left prefrontal cortex (LPFC). Stimulating the motor cortex has strong evidence for reducing pain, while LPFC stimulation shows promise for people dealing with both pain and conditions like depression or fibromyalgia.

A systematic review of 13 randomised controlled trials involving 355 patients reported that rTMS significantly reduced pain intensity, with an average decrease of −1.01 points on pain scales (95% CI −2.39 to −1.48, p < 0.001) ^[4]. Sensory improvements were also noted, with a standardised mean difference of −1.30 (95% CI −1.74 to −0.87, p < 0.001) ^[4]. Research suggests that delivering 3,000 pulses per session over 10 sessions can provide pain relief lasting up to 60 days. Even shorter courses – five sessions at higher intensities (110% of resting motor thresholds) – have shown effectiveness for at least 14 days. Repeated sessions appear to encourage cumulative changes in the brain, helping to normalise disrupted pain-processing systems.

While rTMS focuses on the brain, KHES takes a different route by targeting nerve conduction directly.

Kilohertz High-Frequency Electrical Stimulation (KHES)

Kilohertz high-frequency electrical stimulation operates at much higher frequencies – 5,000 to 10,000 Hz – compared to traditional methods. This allows it to selectively block pain signals travelling along small-diameter nerve fibres, like A-delta and C fibres, while sparing larger fibres responsible for motor and proprioceptive functions. As a result, KHES avoids the discomfort of paraesthesias or muscle contractions often linked to nerve stimulation.

This technique is particularly useful for orofacial pain because it can be delivered via peripheral nerve stimulation, targeting specific divisions of the trigeminal nerve, such as the ophthalmic, maxillary, and mandibular branches. In clinical trials focused on craniofacial pain, 69% of patients receiving active KHES reported significant relief after three months, compared to just 11% in the control group ^[9].

However, KHES requires precise electrode placement to be effective. For intraoral applications, factors like oral anatomy, saliva conductivity, and patient comfort during extended sessions must be carefully managed to ensure success.

Both rTMS and KHES provide targeted, mechanism-driven solutions for those who haven’t found relief with systemic treatments. These techniques focus on addressing the root causes of pain rather than just its symptoms, offering hope for improved outcomes.

Research Findings on High-Frequency Stimulation

Pain Reduction and Quality of Life Outcomes

Clinical trials have shown that high-frequency stimulation can offer considerable relief for patients dealing with neuropathic orofacial pain, especially when standard treatments fall short. Even modest reductions in pain levels can make a noticeable difference in daily life.

In terms of quality of life, studies reported meaningful improvements, with standard measures showing mean differences of −9.23 and −2.1^[4]. Sensory function also showed progress, with a standardised mean difference of −1.30 (95% CI −1.74 to −0.87, p < 0.001)^[4]. These results provide a strong foundation for addressing unresolved questions in this area.

One study focusing on thalamic pain found that patients receiving 10-Hz rTMS experienced a drop in visual analogue scale (VAS) scores from 7.0 to 5.6 within two weeks, with further reductions to 3.9 at eight weeks^[6]. High-frequency electrical stimulation at 10 kHz has delivered even more striking results in other neuropathic pain settings. For example, in trials involving painful diabetic neuropathy, 85% of patients achieved at least 50% pain relief after six months, compared to just 5% in the conventional management group. On average, patients reported an 82.3% reduction in pain (95% CI, 78.5–86.1) from baseline^[8]. Notably, 60% of those in the 10-kHz stimulation group reached pain remission – defined as maintaining a VAS score of 3 cm or less over six months – while only 1% of the conventional group achieved this outcome^[8].

Peripheral nerve stimulation targeting craniofacial pain also showed promise: 69% of patients receiving active stimulation reported significant relief at three months, compared to 11% in a control group with deactivated devices^[9]. Overall, the effectiveness of rTMS in managing neuropathic orofacial pain has been classified as moderate using the GRADE system^[4].

Gaps in Current Research

Despite these encouraging findings, there are notable limitations. For instance, a systematic review found no significant improvement in sleep quality for patients undergoing rTMS (MD: −1.72, 95% CI −4.13 to 0.68, p > 0.05)^[4]. This is a significant drawback, considering the strong link between chronic pain and sleep disturbances. Similarly, while chronic facial pain often coexists with depression and anxiety, the studies did not find statistically significant improvements in psychological well-being^[4].

Some observational studies and case reports have even shown no difference between rTMS and sham stimulation for neuropathic pain relief^[6]. This inconsistency suggests that factors like patient selection, precise targeting, and variations in treatment protocols could play a role in determining effectiveness. Moreover, many studies only offer short-term follow-up data – typically six months or less – leaving questions about the long-term sustainability of benefits and whether maintenance sessions might be required^[8].

Another challenge lies in the lack of standardised treatment protocols. Studies vary widely in their approaches, including differences in frequency settings, intensity levels, number of sessions, and total pulse counts^[5]. This variability makes it difficult to establish clear guidelines. Additionally, patient responses can differ significantly, and researchers have yet to identify the factors that predict treatment success^[8].

These gaps underscore the need for further research, particularly to explore the impact of rTMS on sleep and psychological health. Identifying why some patients respond well to treatment while others do not is equally critical. By addressing these questions, future studies can help refine treatment protocols and broaden the potential benefits of high-frequency stimulation.

Safety Profile and Side Effects

High-frequency stimulation has shown a strong safety record, with only minimal adverse effects reported. This is particularly promising for patients who’ve struggled with side effects from medications or are looking for non-drug alternatives. These findings pave the way for more detailed evaluations of specific treatment methods.

For repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), reviews covering 355 patients with neuropathic orofacial pain highlight both its effectiveness and safety ^[4]. The most common side effects include temporary headaches, mild scalp discomfort, and short-lived concentration issues – none of which typically require intervention. Even with intensive protocols – 3,000 pulses per session over 10 sessions – very few adverse effects were noted ^[5]. Interestingly, studies using higher intensities (around 110% of resting motor thresholds) not only maintained excellent safety outcomes but also provided longer-lasting pain relief, sometimes up to 60 days ^[5].

Kilohertz high-frequency electrical stimulation (KHES) primarily causes mild, localised skin irritation or temporary sensory changes near electrode sites. These effects are usually well-tolerated and limited to the treatment area. Unlike some other forms of spinal cord stimulation, KHES does not induce paraesthesias – those odd tingling or buzzing sensations – making it a more comfortable option for many patients ^[8].

Clinical trial data further underscores the tolerability of high-frequency stimulation. In a randomised study on 10-kHz stimulation for diabetic neuropathy, only 2% of patients in the active group reported worsened pain, compared to 52% in the control group ^[8]. During trial phases before permanent implantation, 94% of patients achieved at least 50% pain relief, demonstrating both safety and effectiveness ^[8].

Adjusting treatment intensity also plays a key role in maintaining safety. More intensive protocols, such as five rTMS sessions, have been shown to extend pain relief for at least 14 days, with minimal adverse effects ^[5]. This indicates that increasing intensity doesn’t necessarily increase safety risks, which is crucial when tailoring treatment for patients needing longer-lasting results.

However, pre-treatment evaluations are essential for ensuring safety, especially for specific patient groups. For instance, individuals with central sensitisation in trigeminal neuropathic conditions may respond better to systemic medications rather than localised treatments ^[10]. Patients on multiple medications – such as anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors – should have their treatment plans carefully reviewed to avoid potential interactions ^[10]. Additionally, those with implanted metallic devices, pacemakers, or significant psychiatric conditions may not be suitable candidates for rTMS, although thorough screening can address these concerns before treatment begins.

To ensure safety, practitioners are encouraged to increase treatment intensity gradually, much like the incremental dosing approach used with anticonvulsant medications. For Australian clinicians, this step-by-step method allows for careful monitoring of both therapeutic effects and potential side effects ^[1][3]. It helps identify the optimal treatment level for each patient while minimising risks.

Patient education is another cornerstone of safety management. Clear communication about what sensations to expect, realistic treatment outcomes, and the importance of reporting any adverse effects can make a big difference. Establishing robust monitoring protocols – such as baseline assessments, session documentation, and periodic re-evaluations – further ensures patient safety throughout the treatment process.

That said, long-term safety data for high-frequency stimulation is still limited. Most follow-ups extend only six months or less, leaving unanswered questions about cumulative effects, tolerance, and long-term risks ^[8]. This gap underscores the importance of cautious patient selection, conservative treatment settings, and regular reassessment of risks versus benefits. Patients should be informed that long-term safety is still being studied, and treatment decisions should be tailored to their individual responses.

When compared to pharmacological treatments, high-frequency stimulation offers a compelling safety advantage. Medications like anticonvulsants often require careful monitoring due to risks such as confusion, nausea, and drowsiness ^[2]. Tricyclic antidepressants are known for side effects like sedation and anticholinergic symptoms. In contrast, high-frequency stimulation avoids systemic drug interactions and metabolic complications, although it should still be thoughtfully integrated with any ongoing treatments.

Ultimately, high-frequency stimulation works best when combined with other therapies. Research suggests that managing orofacial neuropathic pain often requires a mix of treatments ^[1]. By integrating high-frequency stimulation into a broader plan, patients may experience reduced treatment burdens, fewer side effects, and enhanced therapeutic outcomes.

sbb-itb-2be92ed

Using High-Frequency Stimulation in Clinical Settings

High-frequency stimulation is often considered when first-line oral medications and second-line topical treatments fail to provide enough relief for chronic neuropathic orofacial pain. Initial treatment typically involves oral medications such as anticonvulsants (e.g., carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, topiramate), tricyclic antidepressants, or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. If these fail, topical treatments like lidocaine, benzocaine, capsaicin, or NSAIDs (e.g., diclofenac) applied directly to the painful area are the next step. High-frequency stimulation becomes an option when these approaches either don’t work or lead to intolerable side effects.

Rather than replacing traditional therapies, high-frequency stimulation works alongside them. Studies have shown that combining this stimulation with standard medical treatments often leads to better results than using either approach on its own. While much of the research focuses on conditions like diabetic neuropathy, it highlights the effectiveness of integrating stimulation with pharmacological treatments.

Motor cortex stimulation, particularly targeting the M1 region, has received Level A evidence for its ability to relieve neuropathic pain. Frequencies of 5 Hz or higher have shown clear benefits ^[5]. This strong evidence makes it a cornerstone of evidence-based practice. For orofacial pain disorders, motor cortex stimulation has proven more effective than targeting facial sites, making it the preferred method ^[5]. The following sections discuss how to select the right patients and implement treatment protocols effectively.

Patient Selection and Treatment Protocols

Careful evaluation is essential when identifying candidates for high-frequency stimulation. The ideal patients are those with chronic neuropathic orofacial pain – such as trigeminal neuralgia, post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathy, or similar conditions – who haven’t responded to medications or cannot tolerate their side effects. A confirmed diagnosis of neuropathic pain is critical, as is ensuring the patient understands the treatment process and is committed to follow-ups.

Certain factors can predict better outcomes. Patients with intact trigeminal nerve function and lesions above the nerve nuclei often respond well to motor cortex stimulation ^[7]. In contrast, those with central sensitisation in trigeminal neuropathic conditions may benefit more from systemic medications rather than localised treatments. These distinctions help clinicians tailor treatments to individual needs.

Treatment protocols vary depending on the method of stimulation, but some general principles apply. For repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), protocols with higher pulse counts tend to provide more lasting results. Before permanently implanting devices like spinal cord stimulators, a temporary trial period is often conducted to assess potential benefits. Remarkably, 94% of patients undergoing such trials report at least 50% pain relief, which is a strong indicator of long-term success ^[8]. This trial approach helps avoid unnecessary procedures while identifying those most likely to benefit.

Baseline assessments are crucial for effective treatment planning. Clinicians should document the severity of pain using validated scales, evaluate the patient’s quality of life, and set clear treatment goals. Regular monitoring – ideally after each session or on a weekly basis – tracks progress and informs adjustments to the stimulation parameters. A meaningful response is typically defined as at least a 30% reduction in pain, though individual goals should ultimately guide success measures. Adjustments to treatment settings, such as frequency, intensity, and session duration, should follow a gradual and methodical approach, similar to how anticonvulsant medications are titrated. Detailed documentation of responses, side effects, and functional improvements ensures informed decisions about continuing, modifying, or stopping therapy. These structured protocols provide a clear framework for tailoring treatments to individual patients.

Barriers to Clinical Implementation

Despite its promise, implementing high-frequency stimulation in clinical practice comes with challenges. Cost is a major barrier. The specialised equipment required for rTMS or kilohertz high-frequency electrical stimulation can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, making it inaccessible for many clinics. Additionally, Medicare and private health insurance may not fully cover treatment sessions, leaving patients with significant out-of-pocket expenses.

Access to equipment is another issue, particularly in rural or regional areas. Patients outside major cities often face long travel distances to reach facilities offering high-frequency stimulation, adding logistical difficulties to their treatment journey.

Another challenge is clinician training and expertise. Administering high-frequency stimulation, selecting suitable candidates, and managing treatment protocols require specialised training. Without sufficient training programmes, it’s difficult to build the workforce needed to deliver these treatments. Furthermore, limited awareness among general practitioners and dental professionals about high-frequency stimulation means many eligible patients may never be referred for this treatment.

The evidence base, although growing, is still considered limited by some clinicians compared to more established pharmacological treatments. Variability in pain diagnoses and treatment protocols across studies makes it harder to interpret and apply research findings consistently.

Regulatory hurdles also slow adoption. Establishing standardised treatment pathways, credentialing requirements, and quality assurance measures takes time. In Australia, coordination between state health departments, professional organisations, and regulatory bodies adds complexity to these efforts.

Patient-related factors also play a role. Many individuals with chronic orofacial pain are unaware of high-frequency stimulation as a treatment option. Even when informed, some may hesitate due to concerns about new therapies, particularly those involving electrical stimulation or magnetic fields. The need for multiple treatment sessions over several weeks can also be a significant time commitment, which not all patients can accommodate.

Addressing these barriers requires a multi-faceted approach. Advocating for better Medicare coverage and private insurance support would help reduce financial obstacles. Investing in equipment for public hospitals and specialist pain clinics, especially in regional areas, would improve access. Developing structured training programmes for healthcare providers through universities or professional colleges could build the necessary expertise. Raising awareness among general practitioners and other referring professionals through continuing education and clinical guidelines would improve patient identification and referral processes.

A team-based approach can improve outcomes by addressing the complexity of chronic neuropathic orofacial pain. The ideal care team includes dental professionals or orofacial pain specialists for diagnosis, neurologists or pain medicine specialists for pharmacological management and suitability assessments, and trained technicians or clinicians to administer the therapy. Physiotherapists can address related myofascial pain, while psychologists help manage anxiety or depression linked to chronic pain. Regular communication among team members ensures coordinated care, prevents medication interactions, and allows timely adjustments to treatment plans. In Australia, general practitioners play a key role in coordinating referrals and maintaining continuity of care across specialists.

Educating patients is also critical for successful implementation. Clinicians should explain how high-frequency stimulation works in simple, clear language, differentiating it from other treatments. Patients should have realistic expectations, understanding that while complete pain relief may not be possible, significant improvements are achievable. The informed consent process should cover potential side effects, treatment duration, session frequency, and the need for monitoring. Being transparent about the current evidence base, including gaps in long-term safety data, helps patients make informed decisions about their care.

Future Research Directions

Advancing research in high-frequency stimulation is crucial to address the clinical challenges highlighted earlier. While existing studies demonstrate its potential, there are still unanswered questions about how to optimise its use, understand long-term effects, and account for individual patient differences. Filling these knowledge gaps is essential to establish high-frequency stimulation as a dependable, research-backed treatment.

Refining Treatment Parameters

One of the pressing needs is to fine-tune the treatment settings. Current studies use a wide range of parameters – different frequencies, intensities, session durations, and schedules – making it difficult to compare results or establish standard practices. While high-frequency stimulation generally involves frequencies of 5 Hz or more, the ideal frequency for maximum pain relief remains uncertain. Protocols vary widely, from 10 Hz to kilohertz levels, targeting different neural pathways without consistent comparisons.

To make progress, future research should focus on standardising key parameters like frequency, intensity, and session timing to optimise outcomes. Evidence suggests that multiple sessions can extend the duration of pain relief. For instance, five sessions have been shown to provide relief lasting up to two weeks, while 10 sessions can extend benefits to 60 days ^[5]. However, it remains unclear if additional sessions could further prolong these effects.

Customisation may also play a role. Personalised protocols based on factors like pain severity, duration, or neuroimaging findings could offer better results compared to standardised approaches. Additionally, researchers must explore the balance between stimulation intensity, therapeutic benefits, and potential side effects. This includes determining whether the parameters should differ when high-frequency stimulation is used alone versus in combination with medications or other therapies.

Long-Term Treatment Effects

Beyond optimising initial settings, understanding how these parameters perform over time is equally critical. Most studies track outcomes for periods ranging from 8 to 60 days, leaving a significant gap in knowledge about long-term effects. Research following patients for 12 months or longer is necessary to answer key questions: Does pain relief persist? How quickly do symptoms return? Can repeated treatments maintain effectiveness over time?

Long-term studies should also expand their focus beyond pain intensity. Factors like quality of life, functional abilities (e.g., eating and speaking comfortably), sleep quality, and psychological well-being are equally important to patients. While high-frequency stimulation reduces pain, current evidence indicates it may not significantly improve sleep or mental health ^[4]. This suggests that additional interventions might be needed to address these aspects.

Another area for investigation is whether patients develop tolerance over time, requiring higher intensities or more frequent sessions, or if repeated treatments provide cumulative benefits. Comparative studies are also needed to determine if combining high-frequency stimulation with pharmacological treatments offers better long-term results. Maintenance therapy is another consideration – could periodic "booster" sessions help sustain the benefits? Determining the ideal frequency for these sessions is key to maintaining results while minimising the burden on patients.

Why Patient Responses Vary

A significant challenge in high-frequency stimulation is the variability in patient responses, with about one-third of individuals experiencing minimal benefit. Understanding why this happens could improve treatment outcomes and help identify the patients most likely to benefit.

Future research should explore predictive biomarkers, such as genetic factors, neuroimaging patterns (e.g., functional MRI findings), and inflammatory markers, to pinpoint who might respond best. Baseline pain characteristics, like whether the pain is constant or episodic, burning or sharp, and how long it has persisted, could also provide valuable insights.

Psychological factors, including depression, anxiety, and pain catastrophising, may influence outcomes and should be studied further. Comorbid conditions like fibromyalgia or migraines, as well as demographic factors like age and sex, may also play a role in treatment effectiveness.

Machine learning could be a game-changer here. Analysing large datasets that include clinical, imaging, and genetic information could help identify patterns that predict treatment success. This approach could pave the way for more personalised treatment plans, moving away from the current trial-and-error methods toward precision pain management.

Finally, understanding variability in responses requires a deeper look at the mechanisms behind high-frequency stimulation. Does it work by modulating peripheral nerves, affecting the central nervous system, or both? Does it alter central sensitisation? Techniques like quantitative sensory testing and functional MRI could shed light on how this therapy interacts with pain pathways. Standardising outcome measures across studies and clearly defining what constitutes meaningful improvement will also be critical for comparing results and identifying the patient groups that benefit most.

Conclusion

High-frequency stimulation provides a promising option for patients who haven’t responded to conventional medications. Research shows impressive results, with response rates reaching up to 85% at six months and 94% during trial periods^[8]. These figures highlight its potential as a valuable alternative to traditional approaches.

The treatment also boasts a favourable safety profile, with only mild and temporary side effects, unlike the broader impacts of systemic medications. Peripheral nerve stimulation has similarly shown notable advantages compared to control groups^[9].

However, there are still hurdles to overcome. Many studies are limited by short follow-up durations and inconsistent treatment protocols across research centres. Additionally, there’s still much to learn about which patients are most likely to benefit. Practical barriers, such as the high cost of equipment and limited access in regional areas of Australia, further complicate its broader adoption.

Future research needs to focus on standardising treatment protocols, extending follow-up periods, and identifying factors that predict success. By addressing these gaps, the medical community can improve patient selection and refine treatment strategies.

For now, high-frequency stimulation represents a hopeful option for individuals facing chronic pain. As ongoing research sheds light on long-term outcomes and optimises its use, this therapy could become a more accessible and effective solution for those in need.

FAQs

How effective is high-frequency stimulation compared to traditional treatments for managing neuropathic orofacial pain?

High-frequency stimulation is emerging as a potential option for managing neuropathic orofacial pain, especially for those who don’t find relief through standard treatments like medication or physical therapy. Research indicates that this method works by adjusting nerve activity, which could help ease pain with fewer overall side effects.

Although many patients benefit from traditional treatments, high-frequency stimulation provides a less invasive alternative that might be a better fit for specific situations. However, since outcomes can differ from person to person, it’s essential to discuss this option with a healthcare professional to see if it aligns with your needs.

What challenges might patients face in accessing high-frequency stimulation for neuropathic orofacial pain, and how can these be addressed?

Accessing high-frequency stimulation therapy for neuropathic orofacial pain in Australia can be tricky. Limited availability in specialised clinics, the cost of treatment, and a general lack of awareness about this option are some of the key hurdles. In many cases, this therapy isn’t widely available across the country, which means patients might need to travel to major cities or specific facilities to access it.

To navigate these challenges, it’s a good idea to start by consulting your healthcare provider or dentist. They can guide you on the options available and may refer you to specialists who focus on advanced pain management techniques. It’s also worth having an upfront conversation about costs. Exploring payment plans or checking if your private health insurance covers the treatment could make it easier to manage financially.

Who can benefit from high-frequency stimulation for neuropathic orofacial pain, and what factors affect its effectiveness?

High-frequency stimulation offers a promising option for those dealing with persistent neuropathic orofacial pain, especially when other treatments haven’t worked effectively. This approach focuses on specific nerves, aiming to minimise pain signals and provide relief for conditions that are often tough to manage.

The effectiveness of this therapy can vary based on factors such as the root cause of the pain, an accurate diagnosis, and the individual’s overall health. Speaking with a qualified healthcare professional is essential to assess whether high-frequency stimulation could be a good fit for your needs.

Related Blog Posts

• Neurostimulation: Future of Dental Pain Relief
• What Are Electronic Dental Anesthesia Systems?
• Antidepressants in Orofacial Pain: Evidence Summary
• How Combination Analgesics Manage Orofacial Pain