Comparison of unpleasant and pain thresholds of thermal stimuli in the orofacial regions: a psychophysical study using quantitative sensory testing in healthy young men

Abstract

Purpose/Aim: To gain a better understanding of the psychophysics of thermal pain perception in a clinical setting, this study investigated whether thermal thresholds of unpleasantness are different from pain thresholds of cold and heat stimuli. Of particular interest was the relationship between unpleasantness and pain thresholds for cold vs heat stimuli.

Material and methods: Thirty healthy male volunteers (mean age 26.1 years, range 23 to 32 years) participated. Thermal detection, cold pain (CPT) and heat pain (HPT) thresholds were measured at 5 trigeminal sites by the method of limits using quantitative sensory testing (QST), followed by cold unpleasant (CUT) and heat unpleasant (HUT) thresholds.

Results: The temperatures at which individuals first reported thermal sensations as unpleasant or painful substantially differed among subjects. CUT exhibited a higher mean value with less variability than CPT, and HUT presented a lower mean than HPT (p < .001). As with CPT, CUT did not show any significant difference between the test sites. On the other hand, HUT, like HPT, exhibited site differences (p < .001). There was moderate correlation between CUT and CPT, whereas HUT and HPT were strongly correlated. The relationship between unpleasant and pain thresholds of cold vs heat stimuli was significantly different even when controlling for test site variability (p < .001).

Conclusion: These findings indicate that unpleasant and pain thresholds to thermal stimuli differ in healthy young men. Of particular note is the distinct relationship of unpleasant and pain thresholds of cold vs heat stimuli, revealing the thermal difference in temperature transition from unpleasantness to pain.

Keywords:

• Pain
• quantitative sensory testing
• unpleasantness

Acknowledgements

This present research was conducted by research fund from Dankook University in 2018. The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors declare that the work described was original research that has not been published previously, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. All the authors listed have approved the paper.