Spatial and Gender-dependent Variations in Perioral Pinprick Sensitivity

Abstract

Twenty-eight right-handed young adults participated in a sensory testing experiment to evaluate pinprick sensitivity at ten spatially matched sites on the right and left sides of the face. Stimuli were provided by a sharp-pointed dental explorer on which a rubber eraser had been positioned to minimize variations in the extent to which the skin was indented. Sharpness was defined as the magnitude at which abrupt, localized pricking/stinging sensations were evoked. A magnitude matching procedure was used to reduce among-subject variability in the data. Specifically, each estimate of sharpness was adjusted (i.e., divided) by the subject's mean estimate of the brightness of a visual stimulus. Prior to data collection, subjects were carefully instructed on the use of a common numerical scale for assignment of values of sharpness and brightness. Repeated-measures analysis of variance of the adjusted estimates of sharpness revealed a non-significant effect of gender (p > 0.4), a highly significant effect of side (p < 0.0001), and a highly significant effect of test site (p < 0.0001). Pinprick percepts were sharper on the left side of the face than on the right. Moreover, the vermilion of the upper lip exhibited the greatest sensitivity to pinprick; the vermilion of the lower lip exhibited the least sensitivity. These results suggest that use of a patient's sensitivity to pinprick during clinical neurosensory examination must be undertaken in an informed manner. A conclusion of pathological alteration in sensation can be made only after consideration of the normal spatial variations in the percept of sharpness.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adriaensen H. , Gybels J. , Handwerker HO , Van Hees J. (1983). Response properties of thin myelinated (A-8) fibers in human

skin nerves. J Neurophysiol 49:111-122.

Bartko JJ , Carpenter WT, Jr (1976). On the methods and theory of reliability. J Nerv Ment Dis 163:307-317.

Cooper B. , Ahlquist M. , Friedman RM , Loughner B. , Heft M. ( 1991). Properties of high-threshold mechanoreceptors in the oral mucosa I. Responses to dynamic and static pressure. J Neurophysiol 66:1272-1279.

Dubner R. , Hu JW (1977). Myelinated (AS) nociceptive afferents innervating the monkey's face (abstract). J Dent Res 56:A167.

Dubner R. , Price DD , Beitel RE , Hu JW (1977). Peripheral neural correlates of behavior in monkey and human related to sensorydiscriminative aspects of pain. In: Anderson DJ , Matthews B , editors. Pain in the trigeminal region. Proceedings of a symposium held in the Department of Physiology, University of Bristol, England, 1977 Jul 25-27. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 57-66.

Duncan GH , Feine JS , Bushnell MC , Boyer M. (1988). Use of magnitude matching for measuring group differences in pain perception. In: Dubner R, Gebhart GF, Bond MR, editors. Proceedings of the Vth World Congress on Pain, 1987 Aug 2-7, Hamburg, Germany. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 383-390.

Essick GK (1992). Comprehensive clinical evaluation of perioral sensory function. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 4 :503-526.

Essick GK , Afferica T. , Aldershof B. , Nestor J. , Kelly D. , Whitsel B. (1988). Human perioral directional sensitivity. Exp Neurol 100:506-523.

10.

Feine JS , Bushnell MC , Miron D. , Duncan GH (1991). Sex differences in the perception of noxious heat stimuli. Pain 44:255-262.

11.

Fink D , Beaty H, editors ( 1987). Standard handbook for electrical engineers. New York: McGraw-Hill, 26.8-26.9.

12.

Green BG , Gelhard B. (1987). Perception of temperature on oral and facial skin . Somatosens Motor Res 4:191-200.

13.

Greenspan JD , McGillis Slb (1991). Stimulus features relevant to the perception of sharpness and mechanically evoked cutaneous pain. Somatosens Motor Res 8:137-147.

14.

Halata Z. , Munger BL (1983). The sensory innervation of primate facial skin. II. Vermilion border and mucosa of lip. Brain Res Rev 5:81-107.

15.

Henkin RI , Banks V. (1967). Tactile perception of the tongue, palate and the hand of normal man. In: Bosma JF. editor. Oral sensation and perception. Springfield (IL): Thomas, 182-187.

16.

Johansson RS , Trulsson M. , Olsson KA , Westberg KG (1988). Mechanoreceptor activity from the human face and oral mucosa. Exp Brain Res 72:204-208.

17.

Kesarwani A. , Antonyshyn 0 , Mackinnon SE , Gruss JS , Novak C. , Kelly L. (1989). Facial sensibility testing in the normal and posttraumatic population. Ann Plast Surg 22:416-425.

18.

LaBanc JP , Query-Herrera G. (1986). Quantitative static light touch and nociceptive examination: A prerequisite to microneurosurgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44:M10.

19.

Lanfranchi HE , de Rey BM (1978). Comparative morphometric analysis of vermilion border epithelium and lip epidermis. Acta Anat 101:187-191.

20.

Lass NJ , Kotchek CL , Deem JF ( 1972). Oral two-point discrimination : Further evidence of asymmetry on right and left sides of selected oral structures. Percept Motor Skills 35:59-67.

21.

McNutt JC (1975). Asymmetry in two-point discrimination on the tongues of adults and children. J Commun Disord 8:213-220.

22.

Munger BL , Halata Z. (1983). The sensory innervation of primate facial skin . I. Hairy skin. Brain Res Rev 5:45-80.

23.

Perl ER ( 1968). Myelinated afferent fibres innervating the primate skin and their response to noxious stimuli. J Physiol (Lond) 197:593-615.

24.

Posnick JC , Zimbler AG , Grossman Jai (1990). Normal cutaneous sensibility of the face. Plast Reconstr Surg 86:429-433.

25.

Pubols BH (1982). Factors affecting cutaneous mechanoreceptor response. I. Constant-force versus constant-displacement stimulation. J Neurophysiol 47:515-529.

26.

Raja SN , Meyer RA , Campbell JN (1988). Peripheral mechanisms of somatic pain. Anesthesiology 68:571-590.

27.

Rath EM , Essiek GK ( 1990). Perioral somesthetic sensibility: Do the skin of the lower face and the midface exhibit comparable sensitivity ? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 48:1181-1190.

28.

Robinson PP (1988). Observations on the recovery of sensation following inferior alveolar nerve injuries. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 26:177-189.

29.

Rood JP ( 1983). Degrees of injury to the inferior alveolar nerve sustained during the removal of impacted mandibular third molars by the lingual split technique. Br J Oral Surg 21 :103-116.

30.

SAS Institute, Inc. (1985). SAS user's guide: Statistics, version five edition. The GLM procedure. Cary (NC): The Institute, 433-506.

31.

Seckel BR (1990). Normal cutaneous sensibility of the face (discussion) . Plast Reconstr Surg 86:434-435. Discussion on: Plast Reconstr Surg 86:429-433, 1990.

32.

Stevens JC , Marks LE (1980). Cross-modality matching functions generated by magnitude estimation. Percept Psychophys 27 :379-389.

33.

Stevens SS (1971). Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychol Rev 78:426-450.

34.

Victor M. , Adams RD (1970). Disorders of sensation. In: Wintrobe MW , Thorn GW , Adams RD , Bennet IL, Jr , Braunwald E , IsselBacher KJ , et al. (editors). Harrison's principles of internal medicine. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 142-148.

35.

Weinstein S. (1968). Intensive and extensive aspects of tactile sensitivity as a function of body part, sex and laterality. In: Kenshalo DR , editor. The skin senses. Springfield (IL): Thomas, 195-222.

36.

Weinstein S. , Sersen EA (1961). Tactual sensitivity as a function of handedness and laterality. J Comp Physiol Psychol 54:665-669.

37.

Yoshida T. , Nagamine T. , Kobayashi T. , Michimi N. , Nakajima T. , Sasakura H. , et al. (1989). Impairment of the inferior alveolar nerve after sagittal split osteotomy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 17:271-278.

38.

Zuniga JR , Essick GK (1992). A contemporary approach to the clinical evaluation of trigeminal nerve injuries. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 4:353-367.