Tara Renton

Bio: Tara Renton is an academic researcher from King's College London. The author has contributed to research in topics: Orofacial pain & Inferior alveolar nerve. The author has an hindex of 34, co-authored 187 publications receiving 10116 citations. Previous affiliations of Tara Renton include Queen Mary University of London & King's College.

The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (beta version)

Abstract: The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3 edition (beta version), may be reproduced freely for scientific, educational or clinical uses by institutions, societies or individuals. Otherwise, copyright belongs exclusively to the International Headache Society. Reproduction of any part or parts in any manner for commercial uses requires the Society’s permission, which will be granted on payment of a fee. Please contact the publisher at the address below. International Headache Society 2013. Applications for copyright permissions should be submitted to Sage Publications Ltd, 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP, United Kingdom (tel: þ44 (0) 20 7324 8500; fax: þ44 (0) 207 324 8600) (www.sagepub.co.uk). Translations

Six Novel Missense Mutations in the LDL Receptor-Related Protein 5 (LRP5) Gene in Different Conditions with an Increased Bone Density

Abstract: Bone is a dynamic tissue that is subject to the balanced processes of bone formation and bone resorption. Imbalance can give rise to skeletal pathologies with increased bone density. In recent years, several genes underlying such sclerosing bone disorders have been identified. The LDL receptor-related protein 5 (LRP5) gene has been shown to be involved in both osteoporosis-pseudoglioma syndrome and the high–bone-mass phenotype and turned out to be an important regulator of peak bone mass in vertebrates. We performed mutation analysis of the LRP5 gene in 10 families or isolated patients with different conditions with an increased bone density, including endosteal hyperostosis, Van Buchem disease, autosomal dominant osteosclerosis, and osteopetrosis type I. Direct sequencing of the LRP5 gene revealed 19 sequence variants. Thirteen of these were confirmed as polymorphisms, but six novel missense mutations (D111Y, G171R, A214T, A214V, A242T, and T253I) are most likely disease causing. Like the previously reported mutation (G171V) that causes the high–bone-mass phenotype, all mutations are located in the aminoterminal part of the gene, before the first epidermal growth factor–like domain. These results indicate that, despite the different diagnoses that can be made, conditions with an increased bone density affecting mainly the cortices of the long bones and the skull are often caused by mutations in the LRP5 gene. Functional analysis of the effects of the various mutations will be of interest, to evaluate whether all the mutations give rise to the same pathogenic mechanism.

A randomised controlled clinical trial to compare the incidence of injury to the inferior alveolar nerve as a result of coronectomy and removal of mandibular third molars

Abstract: We randomised 128 patients who required operations on mandibular third molars and who had radiological evidence of proximity of the third molar to the canal of the inferior alveolar nerve to one of two operations: extraction [n=102], and coronectomy [n=94]. Some roots were dislodged during intended coronectomy and were therefore removed, resulting in two subgroups (successful coronectomy n=58, and failed coronectomy n=36). The mean (S.D.) follow up was 25 (13) months. Nineteen nerves were damaged (19%) after extraction, none after successful coronectomy, and three (8%) after failed coronectomy (p=0.01). The incidence of dry socket infection was similar in the three groups (10/102, 10%, 7/58, 12%, and 4/36, 11%, respectively). No root required removal or reoperation. To our knowledge this is the first clinical trial of the efficacy of coronectomy in preserving the inferior alveolar nerve. The length of follow up was about 2 years, which for the assessment of delayed eruption of the root fragments is not sufficient as this process may continue for up to 10 years. However, it seems that coronectomy reduces the incidence of injury to the inferior alveolar nerve without increasing the risk of dry socket or infection.

Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) for Clinical and Research Applications: recommendations of the International RDC/TMD Consortium Network* and Orofacial Pain Special Interest Group†

Abstract: Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are a significant public health problem affecting approximately 5% to 12% of the population.1 TMD is the second most common musculoskeletal condition (after chronic low back pain) resulting in pain and disability.1 Pain-related TMD can impact the individual's daily activities, psychosocial functioning, and quality of life. Overall, the annual TMD management cost in the USA, not including imaging, has doubled in the last decade to $4 billion.1 Patients often seek consultation with dentists for their TMD, especially for pain-related TMD. Diagnostic criteria for TMD with simple, clear, reliable, and valid operational definitions for the history, examination, and imaging procedures are needed to render physical diagnoses in both clinical and research settings. In addition, biobehavioral assessment of pain-related behavior and psychosocial functioning—an essential part of the diagnostic process—is required and provides the minimal information whereby one can determine whether the patient's pain disorder, especially when chronic, warrants further multidisciplinary assessment. Taken together, a new dual-axis Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) will provide evidence-based criteria for the clinician to use when assessing patients, and will facilitate communication regarding consultations, referrals, and prognosis.2 The research community benefits from the ability to use well-defined and clinically relevant characteristics associated with the phenotype in order to facilitate more generalizable research. When clinicians and researchers use the same criteria, taxonomy, and nomenclature, then clinical questions and experience can be more easily transferred into relevant research questions, and research findings are more accessible to clinicians to better diagnose and manage their patients. The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) have been the most widely employed diagnostic protocol for TMD research since its publication in 1992.3 This classification system was based on the biopsychosocial model of pain4 that included an Axis I physical assessment, using reliable and well-operationalized diagnostic criteria, and an Axis II assessment of psychosocial status and pain-related disability. The intent was to simultaneously provide a physical diagnosis and identify other relevant characteristics of the patient that could influence the expression and thus management of their TMD. Indeed, the longer the pain persists, the greater the potential for emergence and amplification of cognitive, psychosocial, and behavioral risk factors, with resultant enhanced pain sensitivity, greater likelihood of additional pain persistence, and reduced probability of success from standard treatments.5 The RDC/TMD (1992) was intended to be only a first step toward improved TMD classification, and the authors stated the need for future investigation of the accuracy of the Axis I diagnostic algorithms in terms of reliability and criterion validity—the latter involving the use of credible reference standard diagnoses. Also recommended was further assessment of the clinical utility of the Axis II instruments. The original RDC/TMD Axis I physical diagnoses have content validity based on the critical review by experts of the published diagnostic approach in use at that time and were tested using population-based epidemiologic data.6 Subsequently, a multicenter study showed that, for the most common TMD, the original RDC/TMD diagnoses exhibited sufficient reliability for clinical use.7 While the validity of the individual RDC/TMD diagnoses has been extensively investigated, assessment of the criterion validity for the complete spectrum of RDC/TMD diagnoses had been absent until recently.8 For the original RDC/TMD Axis II instruments, good evidence for their reliability and validity for measuring psychosocial status and pain-related disability already existed when the classification system was published.9–13 Subsequently, a variety of studies have demonstrated the significance and utility of the original RDC/TMD biobehavioral measures in such areas as predicting outcomes of clinical trials, escalation from acute to chronic pain, and experimental laboratory settings.14–20 Other studies have shown that the original RDC/TMD biobehavioral measures are incomplete in terms of prediction of disease course.21–23 The overall utility of the biobehavioral measures in routine clinical settings has, however, yet to be demonstrated, in part because most studies have to date focused on Axis I diagnoses rather than Axis II biobehavioral factors.24 The aims of this article are to present the evidence-based new Axis I and Axis II DC/TMD to be used in both clinical and research settings, as well as present the processes related to their development.

Death and dying

Abstract: Death is the new sex, last great taboo in Western society and Western medicine, as Richard Smith discusses in his editorial (p 129). In the trinity of births, marriages, and deaths, only death does not have glossy magazines devoted to stylish consumption at the attendant ceremonies. On the web, of course, …

A classification of chronic pain for ICD-11.

Abstract: Chronic pain has been recognized as pain that persists past normal healing time5 and hence lacks the acute warning function of physiological nociception.35 Usually pain is regarded as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3 to 6 months.29 Chronic pain is a frequent condition, affecting an estimated 20% of people worldwide6,13,14,18 and accounting for 15% to 20% of physician visits.25,28 Chronic pain should receive greater attention as a global health priority because adequate pain treatment is a human right, and it is the duty of any health care system to provide it.4,13 The current version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) includes some diagnostic codes for chronic pain conditions, but these diagnoses do not reflect the actual epidemiology of chronic pain, nor are they categorized in a systematic manner. The ICD is the preeminent tool for coding diagnoses and documenting investigations or therapeutic measures within the health care systems of many countries. In addition, ICD codes are commonly used to report target diseases and comorbidities of participants in clinical research. Consequently, the current lack of adequate coding in the ICD makes the acquisition of accurate epidemiological data related to chronic pain difficult, prevents adequate billing for health care expenses related to pain treatment, and hinders the development and implementation of new therapies.10,11,16,23,27,31,37 Responding to these shortcomings, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) contacted the WHO and established a Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain. The IASP Task Force, which comprises pain experts from across the globe,19 has developed a new and pragmatic classification of chronic pain for the upcoming 11th revision of the ICD. The goal is to create a classification system that is applicable in primary care and in clinical settings for specialized pain management. A major challenge in this process was finding a rational principle of classification that suits the different types of chronic pain and fits into the general ICD-11 framework. Pain categories are variably defined based on the perceived location (headache), etiology (cancer pain), or the primarily affected anatomical system (neuropathic pain). Some diagnoses of pain defy these classification principles (fibromyalgia). This problem is not unique to the classification of pain, but exists throughout the ICD. The IASP Task Force decided to give first priority to pain etiology, followed by underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, and finally the body site. Developing this multilayered classification was greatly facilitated by a novel principle of assigning diagnostic codes in ICD-11, termed “multiple parenting.” Multiple parenting allows the same diagnosis to be subsumed under more than 1 category (for a glossary of ICD terms refer to Table ​Table1).1). Each diagnosis retains 1 category as primary parent, but is cross-referenced to other categories that function as secondary parents. Table 1 Glossary of ICD-11 terms. The new ICD category for “Chronic Pain” comprises the most common clinically relevant disorders. These disorders were divided into 7 groups (Fig. ​(Fig.1):1): (1) chronic primary pain, (2) chronic cancer pain, (3) chronic posttraumatic and postsurgical pain, (4) chronic neuropathic pain, (5) chronic headache and orofacial pain, (6) chronic visceral pain, and (7) chronic musculoskeletal pain. Experts assigned to each group are responsible for the definition of diagnostic criteria and the selection of the diagnoses to be included under these subcategories of chronic pain. Thanks to Bedirhan Ustun and Robert Jakob of the WHO, these pain diagnoses are now integrated in the beta version of ICD-11 (http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1581976053). The Task Force is generating content models for single entities to describe their clinical characteristics. After peer review overseen by the WHO Steering Committee,39 the classification of chronic pain will be voted into action by the World Health Assembly in 2017. Figure 1 Organizational chart of Task Force, IASP, and WHO interactions. The IASP Task Force was created by the IASP council and its scope defined in direct consultation of the chairs (R.D.T. and W.R.) with WHO representatives in 2012. The Task Force reports to ... 2. Classification of chronic pain Chronic pain was defined as persistent or recurrent pain lasting longer than 3 months. This definition according to pain duration has the advantage that it is clear and operationalized. Optional specifiers for each diagnosis record evidence of psychosocial factors and the severity of the pain. Pain severity can be graded based on pain intensity, pain-related distress, and functional impairment. 2.1. Chronic primary pain Chronic primary pain is pain in 1 or more anatomic regions that persists or recurs for longer than 3 months and is associated with significant emotional distress or significant functional disability (interference with activities of daily life and participation in social roles) and that cannot be better explained by another chronic pain condition. This is a new phenomenological definition, created because the etiology is unknown for many forms of chronic pain. Common conditions such as, eg, back pain that is neither identified as musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome will be found in this section and biological findings contributing to the pain problem may or may not be present. The term “primary pain” was chosen in close liaison with the ICD-11 revision committee, who felt this was the most widely acceptable term, in particular, from a nonspecialist perspective.

WNT signaling in bone homeostasis and disease: from human mutations to treatments

Abstract: Low bone mass and strength lead to fragility fractures, for example, in elderly individuals affected by osteoporosis or children with osteogenesis imperfecta. A decade ago, rare human mutations affecting bone negatively (osteoporosis-pseudoglioma syndrome) or positively (high-bone mass phenotype, sclerosteosis and Van Buchem disease) have been identified and found to all reside in components of the canonical WNT signaling machinery. Mouse genetics confirmed the importance of canonical Wnt signaling in the regulation of bone homeostasis, with activation of the pathway leading to increased, and inhibition leading to decreased, bone mass and strength. The importance of WNT signaling for bone has also been highlighted since then in the general population in numerous genome-wide association studies. The pathway is now the target for therapeutic intervention to restore bone strength in millions of patients at risk for fracture. This paper reviews our current understanding of the mechanisms by which WNT signalng regulates bone homeostasis.

Pathogenesis of osteoporosis: concepts, conflicts, and prospects

Abstract: Osteoporosis is a disorder in which loss of bone strength leads to fragility fractures. This review examines the fundamental pathogenetic mechanisms underlying this disorder, which include: (a) failure to achieve a skeleton of optimal strength during growth and development; (b) excessive bone resorption resulting in loss of bone mass and disruption of architecture; and (c) failure to replace lost bone due to defects in bone formation. Estrogen deficiency is known to play a critical role in the development of osteoporosis, while calcium and vitamin D deficiencies and secondary hyperparathyroidism also contribute. There are multiple mechanisms underlying the regulation of bone remodeling, and these involve not only the osteoblastic and osteoclastic cell lineages but also other marrow cells, in addition to the interaction of systemic hormones, local cytokines, growth factors, and transcription factors. Polymorphisms of a large number of genes have been associated with differences in bone mass and fragility. It is now possible to diagnose osteoporosis, assess fracture risk, and reduce that risk with antiresorptive or other available therapies. However, new and more effective approaches are likely to emerge from a better understanding of the regulators of bone cell function.