Difference between revisions of "2° Clinical case: Pineal Cavernoma"

{{transl|it}}

 

[[File:Bruxer SP2.jpg|left|200x200px]]

 

Few studies have attempted to characterize the pain associated with bruxism (i.e., to examine the neurobiological and physiological characteristics of the mandibular muscles). Some clinical cases and small-scale studies suggest that certain drugs linked to the dopaminergic, serotoninergic, and adrenergic systems can either suppress or exacerbate bruxism. Further, the majority of these pharmacological studies indicate that various classes of drugs can influence the muscular activity related to bruxism, without exerting any effect on OP. Therefore, the sensitization of the trigeminal nociceptive system and the facilitating effect on mandibular stretch reflexes and CNS hyperexcitability are neurophysiopathogenetic phenomena that can be correlated to pain in the craniofacial region. However, up to now, no correlation has been reported between OP, dysfunction of the mesencephalic nuclei, and facilitation of trigeminal nociception, except for a clinical study on a patient affected by pontine cavernoma, which highlighted a relative facilitation of the trigeminal nociceptive system through the blink reflex.

 

=== Introduction ===

   [[File:IMG0103.jpg|thumb|300x300px|'''Figura 1:''' The subject was a 32-year-old man suffering from pronounced nocturnal and diurnal bruxism and chronic bilateral Oorofacial pain  ]]Dystonia is an involuntary, repetitive, sustained (tonic), or spasmodic (rapid or clonic) muscle contraction. The spectrum of dystonias can involve various regions of the body. Of interest to oral and maxillofacial surgeons are the cranial-cervical dystonias, in particular, orofacial dystonia (OFD). OFD is an involuntary, sustained contraction of the periorbital, facial, oromandibular, pharyngeal, laryngeal, or cervical muscles.<ref>Thompson PD, Obeso JA, Delgado G, Gallego J, Marsden CD. Focal dystonia of the jaw and differential diagnosis of unilateral jaw and masticatory spasm. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1986;49:651–656. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.49.6.651. [PMC free article][PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar][Ref list]</ref> OFD can involve the masticatory, lower facial, and tongue muscles, which may result in trismus, bruxism, involuntary jaw opening or closure, and involuntary tongue movement.

==== Case report ====

As anticipated we will take up the same diagnostic language presented for the patient Mary Poppins so that it becomes an assimilable and practicable model, and we will try to superimpose it on the present clinical case called 'Bruxer'.<blockquote>The subject was a 32-year-old man suffering from pronounced nocturnal and diurnal bruxism and chronic bilateral OP prevalent in the temporoparietal regions, with greater intensity and frequency on the left side. Neurological examination showed a contraction of the masseter muscles with pronounced stiffness of the jaw, diplopia and loss of visual acuity in the left eye, left gaze nystagmus with a rotary component, papillae with blurred borders and positive bilateral Babynski’s, and polykinetic tendon reflexes in all four limbs.</blockquote>   

From what has been exposed in the previous chapters from the '[[Introduction/en|Introduction]]' to the chapters '[[Logic of medical language: Introduction to quantum-like probability in the masticatory system - en|Logic of medical language]]' and the last chapter '[[Bruxism - en|Bruxism]]', in addition to the complexity of the arguments and the vagueness of the verbal language, we could find ourselves faced with a clinical situation in which seems to dominate one of the contexts considered.   

Unlike the patient with 'Hemimasticatory Spasm', the clinical case of our poor 'Bruxer' shows a phenomenon of overlapping of propositions, assertions and logical sentences in the dental and neurological context and apparently neither of the two obtains an absolute and clear compatibility and consistency. This has repercussions in the clinic in which all the actors involved (medical examiners) are right and contextually wrong, making the diagnostic conclusion inadequate and dangerous, but let's see the process as a whole step by step.   

==== Significance of contexts ====

 

 

Nel '''contesto neurologico''' avremo, perciò, le seguenti frasi ed asserzioni a cui diamo un valore numerico per facilitare la trattazione e cioè <math>\gamma_n=[0|1]</math> dove lo <math>\gamma_n=0</math> indica 'normalità' e <math>\gamma_n=1</math> 'anormalità e dunque positività del referto:

 

<math>\gamma_1=</math> Presenza e simmetria dei Potenziali Evocati Motori delle Radici trigeminali in Figure 5,  <math>\gamma_0=0\longrightarrow</math> Normalità, negatività del referto

 

<math>\gamma_2=</math> Presenza del jaw jerk con relativa asimmetria di ampiezza in Figure 6  <math>\gamma_2=1\longrightarrow</math> Anormalità, negatività del referto* ( lo * è stato inserito per annotare una ambiguità del referto che andremo a descrivere dettagliatamente nella trattazione clinica)

 

<math>\gamma_1=</math> Periodo silente elettrico e contestuale simmetria Figure 7,  <math>\gamma_3=0\longrightarrow</math> Normalità, negatività del referto

 

 

 

File:Bruxer SP2.jpg|'''Figure 7:''' <math>\gamma _3=</math> Mechanical silent period detected electrophysiologically on the right (upper superimposed traces) and left (lower superimposed traces) masseters

==== Demarcator of Coherence <math>\tau</math>====

Once the myriad of normative data reported positively, which generate conflict between contexts, has been washed away, thanks to the coherence demarcator <math>\tau</math> we have a much clearer and more linear picture on which to deepen the analysis of the functionality of the Central Nervous System than in our clinical case ' Bruxer' appears somewhat intrigued by the low diagnostic weight derived from the neurological assertions <math>\Im_n\cup0,33