One journal. Two disciplines. Shared excellence.

Dental and Medical Problems

Title abbreviation: Dent Med Probl
Journal Impact Factor (JIF 2025) – 4.3
Journal Citation Indicator (JCI 2025) - 1.38
Scopus CiteScore (2025) – 5.8
Index Copernicus Value (ICV 2024) – 178.25
MNiSW – 70 pts
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – bimonthly


 

Download original text (EN)

Dental and Medical Problems

2026, vol. 63, nr 3, May-June, p. 695–705

doi: 10.17219/dmp/214271

Publication type: original article

Language: English

License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Cite as:


Zieliński G, Ginszt M, Ginszt A, Wójcicki M, Litko-Rola M, Więckiewicz M. Global prevalence of orofacial pain associated with myofascial, temporomandibular joint, cranial nerve, and dentoalveolar disorders: A meta-analysis. Dent Med Probl. 2026;63(3):695–705. doi:10.17219/dmp/214271

Global prevalence of orofacial pain associated with myofascial, temporomandibular joint, cranial nerve, and dentoalveolar disorders: A meta-analysis

Grzegorz Zieliński1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Michał Ginszt1,C,E,F, Agata Ginszt2,B,E,F, Marcin Wójcicki3,B,E,F, Monika Litko-Rola3,C,E,F, Mieszko Więckiewicz4,A,E,F

1 Department of Stomatognathic System Rehabilitation, Medical University of Lublin, Poland

2 Doctoral School, Medical University of Lublin, Poland

3 Independent Unit of Functional Masticatory Disorders, Medical University of Lublin, Poland

4 Department of Experimental Dentistry, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

Graphical abstract


Graphical abstracts

Highlights


  • Myofascial orofacial pain affects 21% of the global population.
  • Myofascial orofacial pain with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pain is reported in 12% of individuals. The prevalence of TMJ pain alone is estimated at 10%.
  • The disorders of dentoalveolar and related structures account for the highest prevalence of orofacial pain (27%).
  • Orofacial pain attributed to cranial nerve lesions or diseases is the least common, reported at 8%.

Abstract

Background. Orofacial pain, particularly when chronic and unrelated to dental pathology, presents a considerable diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. To address these issues, the International Classification of Orofacial Pain (ICOP), the first comprehensive international classification of orofacial pain, was published in 2020.

Objectives. The aim of this study was to determine the global prevalence of orofacial pain of different origin in accordance with the ICOP classification.

Material and methods. A systematic search of MEDLINE and Scopus was conducted for observational studies published between 2004 and 2024. Although data were initially intended to be classified according to the ICOP categories, the available studies did not permit the direct application of this classification.

Results. The pooled prevalence estimates were as follows: myofascial orofacial pain – 20.60% (95% CI: 9.71–38.50; 5 studies, 3,395 observations); myofascial pain combined with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pain – 11.95% (95% CI: 8.85–15.96; 31 studies, 522,056 observations); TMJ pain alone – 9.51% (95% CI: 6.01–14.73; 13 studies, 21,407 observations); orofacial pain attributed to dentoalveolar and related structures – 27.46% (95% CI: 22.83–32.63; 66 studies, 548,782 observations); and orofacial pain due to cranial nerve lesions or diseases – 7.98% (95% CI: 3.28–18.18; 2 studies, 9,735 observations).

Conclusions. In the global population, the prevalence of myofascial orofacial pain is estimated at 21%. The prevalence of myofascial orofacial pain combined with TMJ pain is reported to be 12%. The prevalence of TMJ pain alone is estimated at 10%. The prevalence of orofacial pain attributed to the disorders of dentoalveolar and anatomically related structures is 27%. The prevalence of orofacial pain attributed to the lesions or diseases of the cranial nerves is 8%. The findings of this study should be interpreted with caution due to the substantial methodological heterogeneity observed across the included studies. This variability underscores the importance of establishing standardized criteria and reporting guidelines for orofacial pain in scientific research.

Keywords: epidemiology, myofascial pain, temporomandibular disorders, orofacial pain, cranial nerve disorders

Introduction

Orofacial pain, particularly when chronic and unrelated to dental pathology, represents a significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenge in clinical practice.1, 2, 3 The literature emphasizes that orofacial pain may have a multifactorial etiology.4, 5 It is not uncommon for several pathogenic mechanisms to overlap, complicating both diagnosis and effective treatment. Due to the dense innervation and complex anatomy of the craniofacial region, pain perception in this area is characterized by high intensity and has a considerable impact on patient functioning.4, 6, 7 Chronic orofacial pain is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life (QoL), reduced occupational and social activity, and an increased risk of depressive and anxiety disorders.8, 9, 10 Persistent pain symptoms may also lead to central sensitization, thereby perpetuating the pathological process. The diagnostic management of orofacial pain requires an interdisciplinary approach, encompassing dental, neurological and otolaryngological examinations, as well as, when indicated, psychological or psychiatric consultation. The early identification of the source of symptoms is crucial, as delayed diagnosis increases the risk of acute pain transitioning into a chronic condition.11, 12, 13

To address these challenges, the International Classification of Orofacial Pain (ICOP) was developed. The ICOP, published in 2020, is the first comprehensive, international classification of orofacial pain.14 It was created through collaboration among dentists, temporomandibular disorders (TMD) specialists, neurologists, psychologists, and members of organizations such as the International Headache Society (IHS), the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), the American Academy of Orofacial Pain (AAOP), the International Network for Orofacial Pain and Related Disorders Methodology (INfORM), and other leading institutions.15 The aim was to establish a common language for researchers and clinicians, enabling the precise definitions and classifications of pain disorders involving the face and the stomatognathic system.14, 15, 16

The ICOP employs a hierarchical structure modeled after the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD-3),17 facilitating logical organization and ensuring the ease of reference. The classification identifies major categories, including: orofacial pain attributed to the disorders of dentoalveolar and anatomically related structures; myofascial orofacial pain; TMJ pain; orofacial pain attributed to the lesions or diseases of the cranial nerves; orofacial pain resembling the presentations of primary headaches; and idiopathic orofacial pain.14 For each entity, specific diagnostic criteria are provided based on the available scientific evidence.

For example, in the context of orofacial pain, it should be noted that TMD affect up to 34% of the population.18 The most common form of TMD for which patients seek specialist care is pain.19, 20, 21 Projections for the coming decades suggest that the prevalence of TMD could increase from 34% to as high as 44% by 2050.22 This underscores the public health importance of addressing orofacial pain.

Given the rising prevalence of painful conditions within the oral and facial regions, there is an urgent need for further research into the various types of orofacial pain.14, 22 Expanding the knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms and identifying risk factors that predispose individuals to chronic pain are essential. Equally important are studies evaluating the effectiveness of diverse therapeutic strategies, including both pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Advancing such research may substantially improve patients’ QoL and healthcare effectiveness in this domain.

Although numerous meta-analyses and systematic reviews have examined various aspects of orofacial pain, most have concentrated on selected subtypes, such as TMD, neuropathic pain or headache-related facial pain, rather than providing a comprehensive overview based on the ICOP framework. As a result, the overall epidemiological profile of orofacial pain, organized according to the ICOP taxonomy, remains only partially characterized. Clarifying this issue may contribute to a more consistent understanding of orofacial pain patterns, and support future diagnostic and therapeutic advances.

Accordingly, the present study was designed and conducted. The aim of this study was to determine the global prevalence of orofacial pain of different origin in accordance with the classification defined in ICOP.

Methods

The present methodology was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform on February 19, 2025 (registration link: https://osf.io/c8x2d). Supplementary materials related to the project were also deposited in the OSF repository (link: https://osf.io/k7eds). Registration in OSF is an accepted and recognized practice, consistent with various literature sources.22, 23, 24, 25

Due to differences in subject matter and analytical methods, the collected data were divided into 2 separate publications. This division enabled a more detailed discussion of the results, ensured the consistency of interpretation, and prevented the excessive abbreviation of essential content. A comprehensive description of the database is provided in the supplementary materials.

This paper focuses on the global prevalence of disorders classified according to ICOP.14 Data on the overall prevalence of oral and facial pain, including continental, age- and sex-specific analyses, are presented in the accompanying publication.

The systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines,26 using the MEDLINE and Scopus databases. The search strategy combined terms such as “orofacial pain”, “facial pain” and “oral pain” with “prevalence”, “epidemiology” and “population”. An additional searche of gray literature was conducted on Google, supplemented by snowballing, following Wohlin’s recommendations.27

A 20-year publication window (January 1, 2004 – December 31, 2024) was applied.4, 27 Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are summarized in Table 1. Only original studies published in English that confirmed the presence of pain among participants were eligible for analysis.

Study selection was performed independently by 2 reviewers (A.G. and M.W.), with disagreement resolved by the first author (G.Z.). Screening was conducted sequentially at the title, abstract and full-text levels. The PRISMA flow diagram illustrates the selection process (Figure 1), and detailed exclusion reasons are available in the supplementary materials.

Statistical analysis

The approach to statistical analysis was derived from previously published studies.18, 22, 28 To investigate the prevalence of orofacial pain, we conducted a meta-analysis of proportions.29 In this framework, each study contributed a proportion, defined as the number of individuals reporting pain divided by the study’s total sample size. To deal with the statistical challenges associated with proportions, we applied a logit transformation, which helps stabilize the variance and ensures that the pooled values, once back-transformed, remain within the [0, 1] range.30 For the main analysis, we relied on a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logistic link.31 This approach was chosen, as it can handle both within- and between-study variability without requiring artificial continuity corrections, making it well suited for the present dataset.32 Between-study variance (τ2) was estimated using maximum likelihood (ML).33 To compute confidence intervals (CI) for study-specific proportions, we used the Wilson score method.34 To check robustness, we repeated the analysis using a random-effects model based on the inverse variance method35 with the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation.36 This alternative specification produced similar prevalence estimates and consistent measures of heterogeneity. We also conducted subgroup analyses to explore prevalence by pain type, calculating pooled proportions separately for each subgroup.33 Heterogeneity was assessed using τ2 and the I2 statistic,37 and significance was evaluated with the Wald test and the likelihood ratio test (LRT). Notably, the subgroup models incorporated group-specific variances rather than assuming a common effect.33 To aid interpretation, subgroup estimates were back-transformed to the original proportion scale.30 Forest plots were used to present overall prevalence, subgroup comparisons and heterogeneity statistics with 95% CIs. The influence of individual studies was further examined with diagnostic tools such as standardized residuals, DFFITS (difference in fits), Cook’s distance, covariance ratios, leave-one-out heterogeneity checks, and DFBETAS (difference in betas).38 Finally, we assessed publication bias using funnel plots, in which study-specific prevalence was plotted against precision.39 Funnel plot asymmetry was evaluated both visually and statistically. In addition, we applied the regression-based method proposed by Thompson and Sharp,40 which is particularly appropriate for meta-analyses of proportions.

Analyses were conducted using the R statistical language (v. 4.3.3; R Core Team, 2024; https://www.r-project.org) on Windows 11 Pro 64-bit (build 26100), using the packages meta,41 dmetar,42 report,43 and dplyr.44

Results

Due to the number of analyses, their full versions together with detailed descriptions and funnel plots, the results for the influential studies are provided in the supplementary materials.

The current analysis synthesizes data from 119 observational studies published between 2004 and 2024, with excluding 2 influential studies classified as “orofacial pain attributed to the lesions or diseases of the cranial nerves”.45, 46 The collected data were classified by continent and by disorder according to ICOP into the following categories:

– orofacial pain attributed to the disorders of dentoalveolar and anatomically related structures;

– myofascial orofacial pain;

– TMJ pain;

– orofacial pain attributed to the lesion or diseases of the cranial nerves;

– orofacial pains resembling the presentations of primary headaches; and

– idiopathic orofacial pain.14

However, after analyzing the collected publications, it was not possible to divide them according to the abovementioned categorization. The gathered publications were divided as described in Table 2.

Pooled effect estimation of myofascial orofacial pain

A meta-analysis encompassing 5 studies, comprising 3,395 observations and 799 reported events, determined the pooled prevalence of myofascial orofacial pain to be 20.60% (95% CI: 9.71–38.50), as presented in the forest plot (Figure 2). This estimate indicates a notable health burden associated with this specific type of orofacial pain across the included studies.

Substantial heterogeneity was observed across the studies, with I2 = 99.3% (95% CI: 99.0–99.5) and a τ2 value indicating considerable between-study variability, further supported by a Higgins H statistic of 11.79 (95% CI: 10.07–13.80). The statistical tests for heterogeneity confirmed this variability as highly significant, with a Wald test Q-value of 556.20 (df (degrees of freedom) = 4; p < 0.001) and LRT p < 0.001.

Pooled effect estimation of myofascial orofacial pain combined with temporomandibular joint pain

A meta-analysis encompassing 31 studies, comprising 522,056 observations and 29,823 reported events, determined the pooled prevalence of myofascial orofacial pain combined with TMJ pain to be 11.95% (95% CI: 8.85–15.96), as presented in the forest plot (Figure 3). This estimate highlights a significant health burden associated with this combined pain condition across the included studies.

Substantial heterogeneity was observed across the studies, with I2 = 99.8% and a τ2 value indicating considerable between-study variability, further supported by a Higgins H statistic of 21.50. The statistical tests for heterogeneity confirmed this variability as highly significant, with a Wald test Q-value of 13,862.48 (df = 30; p < 0.001) and LRT p < 0.001.

Pooled effect estimation of temporomandibular joint pain

A meta-analysis encompassing 13 studies, comprising 21,407 observations and 2,665 reported events, determined the pooled prevalence of TMJ pain to be 9.51% (95% CI: 6.01–14.73), as presented in the forest plot (Figure 4). This estimate indicates a notable health burden associated with TMJ pain across the included studies.

Substantial heterogeneity was observed across the studies, with I2 = 99.2% (95% CI: 99.1–99.4) and a τ2 value indicating considerable between-study variability, further supported by a Higgins H statistic of 11.49 (95% CI: 10.47–12.61). The statistical tests for heterogeneity confirmed this variability as highly significant, with a Wald test Q-value of 1,584.78 (df = 12; p < 0.001) and LRT p < 0.001.

Pooled effect estimation of orofacial pain attributed to the disorders of dentoalveolar and anatomically related structures

A meta-analysis encompassing 66 studies, comprising 548,782 observations and 104,567 reported events, determined the pooled prevalence of orofacial pain attributed to the disorders of dentoalveolar and anatomically related structures to be 27.46% (95% CI: 22.83–32.63), as presented in the forest plot (Figure 5). This estimate indicates a substantial health burden associated with this specific category of orofacial pain across the included studies.

Substantial heterogeneity was observed across the studies, with I2 = 99.8% and a τ2 value indicating considerable between-study variability, further supported by a Higgins H statistic of 22.21. The statistical tests for heterogeneity confirmed this variability as highly significant, with a Wald test Q-value of 32,071.85 (df = 65; p < 0.001) and LRT p < 0.001.

Pooled effect estimation of orofacial pain attributed to the lesions or diseases of the cranial nerves

A meta-analysis encompassing 2 studies, comprising 19,735 observations and 2,700 reported events, determined the pooled prevalence of orofacial pain attributed to the lesions or diseases of the cranial nerves to be 7.98% (95% CI: 3.28–18.18), as presented in the forest plot (Figure 6). This estimate demonstrates a notable health burden associated with this specific type of orofacial pain across the included studies.

Substantial heterogeneity was observed across the studies, with I2 = 94.6% (95% CI: 83.4–98.2) and a τ2 value indicating considerable between-study variability, further supported by a Higgins H statistic of 4.30 (95% CI: 2.45–7.55). The statistical tests for heterogeneity confirmed this variability as highly significant, with a Wald test Q-value of 18.53 (df = 1; p < 0.001) and LRT p < 0.001.

To investigate potential publication bias and the effects of small studies, a linear regression test was performed using the method outlined by Thompson and Sharp.40 This procedure evaluated the extent of asymmetry in the funnel plots for the included studies. A p-value above 0.05 indicated that there was not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of symmetry, implying that the data did not exhibit notable asymmetry and, therefore, showed no signs of publication bias (Table 3).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to determine the global prevalence of pain according to the classification set forth in the ICOP.

The first set of results concerns myofascial pain in the orofacial region, with a prevalence estimate of 20.60%. Despite the relatively small number of studies (n = 5), this proportion suggests a considerable burden of this condition. The wide CI reflects high heterogeneity. Previous estimates suggest myofascial pain affects 30–93% of patients, which aligns with our findings.47 In light of these findings, the estimate obtained in the present analysis – focused on the orofacial region as a particular anatomical area – falls within the expected range and aligns with prior knowledge. Differences between these results and earlier, more general prevalence estimates should be considered acceptable, as they may reflect both the unique characteristics of the anatomical region under investigation and methodological variability across studies.

The next category concerns myofascial orofacial pain combined with TMJ pain. The prevalence of 11.95% appears lower than that of isolated myofascial pain; however, it should be noted that these data are derived from a substantially larger evidence base (n = 31, >500,000 observations). The large sample size improves reliability despite high heterogeneity.

Another category, TMJ pain alone, was estimated at 9.51%. This is a moderate value, but it pertains to a specific pain subtype that often coexists with other orofacial pain conditions. As in other categories, the results are affected by very high heterogeneity, which limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions about population-level burden, but nonetheless provides a broad outline of the global epidemiological situation.18, 22

The epidemiology of myofascial orofacial pain combined with TMJ pain and TMJ pain alone indicates that both conditions occur in fewer than 12% of the global population. Considering the most recent meta-analysis from 2024 on TMD prevalence, estimates suggest a rate of 34%, though without differentiation between painful and non-painful forms.18 LeResche noted in her review that the painful form of TMD affected 10% of adults over the age of 18.48 Similarly, Yap et al., in their meta-analysis, reported that TMD pain occured in 8% of the global population,49 which corroborates the findings of the present study.

Even higher prevalence values are observed for orofacial pain attributed to the disorders of dentoalveolar and anatomically related structures, estimated at 27.46%. This finding underscores the dominant role of dental pathologies in the etiology of facial pain. The large number of studies (n = 66) and over half a million observations make this estimate appear robust at the population level. Orofacial pain attributed to the disorders of dentoalveolar and related structures represents the most prevalent category in this study, given its direct association with highly common conditions such as dental caries, pulpitis and periodontal disease.50, 51, 52 This type of pain is the leading cause of dental visits, as it serves as a clear warning signal of tissue damage.1, 53 Moreover, the high density of anatomical structures within the craniofacial region often results in pain radiation, which further increases the number of reported complaints.1, 53, 54 Unlike rarer causes, such as neuropathic or functional pain, odontogenic pain is more readily recognized and more likely to prompt patients to seek professional care.55, 56, 57

Also of interest are the data on orofacial pain attributed to the lesions or diseases of the cranial nerves. In the pooled analysis, the prevalence of these conditions was estimated to be 7.98%. While noteworthy, this result should be interpreted with caution due to the very limited number of studies (n = 2) and the wide CI. It is useful to compare these findings with population-based studies on cranial neuralgias. Haller et al. reported that the incidence of trigeminal neuralgia (cranial nerve V) ranges from 4 to 20 cases per 100,000 per year, corresponding to 0.004–0.020% annually.58 Schwaiger et al. found cranial neuralgias in 1.6% of individuals aged 55–94 years, suggesting a higher prevalence among older populations.59 Wettervik et al. estimated the annual incidence of trigeminal neuralgia at 5.5 per 100,000 person-years, corresponding to 0.0055% annually.60 Taken together, these findings indicate that the high prevalence of cranial nerve-related pain observed in the meta-analysis is not fully consistent with epidemiological data on trigeminal neuralgia. Such discrepancies may arise from differences in the definition of study entities (broader neuropathic pain vs. narrowly defined trigeminal neuralgia), study methodologies and population characteristics. This warrants further research.

The most consistent finding across all categories is the extremely high level of heterogeneity, which poses both methodological and practical challenges. This highlights significant differences between studies in design, diagnostic criteria, population characteristics, and potential cultural or regional influences, as demonstrated in other analyses.18, 28, 61 Uniform ICOP standards introduced in 2020 may improve future consistency.14 For TMD, the diagnostic criteria (DC/TMD) were developed as early as in 2014,62 and have since been translated and validated in multiple languages.63 The consistent application of standardized frameworks is essential for reliable meta-analyses. The present review includes studies conducted between 2004 and 2024, meaning that most of the earlier analyses preceded the introduction of current diagnostic criteria, which may further explain the observed heterogeneity.

Heterogeneity arises from differences in diagnostic criteria, population characteristics, and study methodologies.64, 65 The ICOP standardization improves interdisciplinary communication and diagnostic accuracy. Future research should address regional data gaps, explore the determinants of pain heterogeneity, and assess the clinical value of ICOP-based diagnostic pathway.56, 57, 64, 66

Conclusions

In the global population, the prevalence of myofascial orofacial pain is estimated at 21%.

The prevalence of myofascial orofacial pain combined with TMJ pain is reported to be 12%.

The prevalence of TMJ pain alone is estimated at 10%.

The prevalence of orofacial pain attributed to the disorders of dentoalveolar and anatomically related structures is 27%.

The prevalence of orofacial pain attributed to the lesions or diseases of the cranial nerves is 8%.

The findings of this study should be interpreted with caution due to the substantial methodological heterogeneity observed across the included studies. This variability underscores the importance of establishing standardized criteria and reporting guidelines for orofacial pain in scientific research.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Data availability

The data related to this article, including additional materials, are available in the Open Science Framework database at the following link: https://osf.io/k7eds/files. The script used in the analysis is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Use of AI and AI-assisted technologies

Not applicable.

Tables


Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Category

Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria

Subject area

studies reporting on the global prevalence of disorders classified according to the International Classification of Orofacial Pain (ICOP)

studies addressing other types of pain (e.g., post-traumatic pain, neuropathic pain unrelated to ICOP)

Study population

general population samples (adults and/or children)

studies involving special or occupational groups (e.g., dentists, musicians, athletes), unless a control group was included – in which case, only the control group data were analyzed

Type of publication

original empirical research (e.g., cross-sectional, cohort studies)

narrative and systematic reviews, meta-analyses, opinion papers, case reports, conference abstracts

Language

publications in English

publications in languages other than English

Publication period

studies published between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2024

studies published outside this time frame

Data sources

MEDLINE, Scopus, and gray literature (via Google Search)

records without full-text availability or insufficient information on study population or methods

Search terms (combinations)

“orofacial pain”, “facial pain” and “oral pain” combined with “prevalence”, “epidemiology” and “population” (and continent names for the gray literature search)

–

Pain confirmation

participants had to confirm the presence of pain consistent with orofacial pain criteria

studies lacking the confirmation of pain occurrence among participants

Screening process

independent screening by 2 reviewers (A.G. and M.W.); disagreement resolved by the first author (G.Z.)

–
Table 2. Descriptive statistics by pain classification

Classification

Number of studies

Total number of participants

Total number of events

Orofacial pain attributed to the disorders of dentoalveolar and anatomically related structures

66

548,782

104,567

Myofascial orofacial pain combined with TMJ pain

31

522,056

29,823

TMJ pain

13

21,407

2,665

Myofascial orofacial pain

5

3,395

799

Orofacial pain attributed to the lesions or diseases of the cranial nerves

2

19,735

2,700
TMJ – temporomandibular joint.
Table 3. Results of the linear regression test for funnel plot asymmetry (Thompson and Sharp test)

Category

Mean prevalence
[%]

Mean prevalence
[%]
≈

t

df

p-value

Bias statistic

SE

Myofascial orofacial pain

20.60

21

−2.92

3

0.062

−46.55

15.94

Myofascial orofacial pain combined with TMJ pain

11.95

12

0.24

29

0.814

0.54

2.28

TMJ pain

9.51

10

−0.80

11

0.441

−4.13

5.17

Orofacial pain attributed to the disorders of dentoalveolar and anatomically related structures

27.46

27

1.68

64

0.099

6.07

3.62

Orofacial pain attributed to the lesions or diseases of the cranial nerves

7.98

8

not applied (2 studies)
t – test statistic from the regression; df – degrees of freedom; p-value – probability of observing the results under the null hypothesis of no asymmetry; bias statistic – estimate of the intercept or slope indicating bias; SE – standard error of the bias statistic.

Figures


Fig. 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart of the study
Fig. 2. Forest plot of the pooled prevalence estimates for myofascial orofacial pain (5 studies)
Fig. 3. Forest plot of the pooled prevalence estimates for the myofascial orofacial pain combined with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pain (31 studies)
Fig. 4. Forest plot of the pooled prevalence estimates for temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pain (13 studies)
Fig. 5. Forest plot of the pooled prevalence estimates for orofacial pain attributed to the disorders of dentoalveolar and anatomically related structures (66 studies)
Fig. 6. Forest plot of the pooled prevalence estimates for orofacial pain attributed to the lesions or diseases of the cranial nerves (2 studies)

References (66)

  1. Labanca M, Gianò M, Franco C, Rezzani R. Orofacial pain and dentistry management: Guidelines for a more comprehensive evidence-based approach. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13(17):2854. doi:10.3390/diagnostics13172854
  2. Badel T, Zadravec D, Kes VB, et al. Orofacial pain – diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Acta Clin Croat. 2019;58(Suppl 1):82–89. doi:10.20471/acc.2019.58.s1.12
  3. Zieliński G, Pająk-Zielińska B. Association between estrogen levels and temporomandibular disorders: An updated systematic review. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25(18):9867. doi:10.3390/ijms25189867
  4. Val M, Manfredini D, Guarda Nardini L. Is botulinum toxin the future of orofacial pain management? Evidence and perspectives. Dent Med Probl. 2025;62(3):405–407. doi:10.17219/dmp/200127
  5. Ghurye S, McMillan R. Orofacial pain – an update on diagnosis and management. Br Dent J. 2017;223(9):639–647. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.879
  6. Bort M, Olchowy C, Olchowy A, Nawrot-Hadzik I, Smardz J, Wieckiewicz M. Efficiency of cannabis and cannabidiol in managing chronic pain syndromes: A comprehensive narrative review. Dent Med Probl. 2024;61(5):765–782. doi:10.17219/dmp/193020
  7. Seweryn P, Waliszewska-Prosół M, Petrášová A, et al. Central sensitisation, anxiety and depressive symptoms in patients with chronic masticatory muscle pain. J Oral Rehabil. 2025;52(11):2010–2020. doi:10.1111/joor.70007
  8. Orzeszek S, Martynowicz H, Smardz J, et al. Assessment of sleep quality in patients with orofacial pain and headache complaints: A polysomnographic study. Dent Med Probl. 2024;61(4):549–562. doi:10.17219/dmp/177008
  9. Seweryn P, Waliszewska-Prosół M, Straburzynski M, et al. Prevalence of central sensitization and somatization in adults with temporomandibular disorders – a prospective observational study. J Oral Facial Pain Headache. 2024;38(4):33–44. doi:10.22514/jofph.2024.037
  10. Orzeszek S, Martynowicz H, Smardz J, et al. Relationship between pain, quality of sleep, sleep bruxism and patients’ personality among individuals with reported orofacial pain. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):25009. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-09978-w
  11. Kalladka M, Ananthan S, Viswanath A, et al. Musculoskeletal disorders and orofacial pain: A narrative review. Front Oral Maxillofac Med. 2024;6:17. doi:10.21037/fomm-21-103
  12. Israel HA, Scrivani SJ. The interdisciplinary approach to oral, facial and head pain. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000;131(7):919–926. doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0310
  13. Dydyk AM, Chiebuka E, Stretanski MF, Givler A. Central pain syndrome. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Islands, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK553027. Accessed August 14, 2025.
  14. International Classification of Orofacial Pain, 1st edition (ICOP). Cephalalgia. 2020;40(2):129–221. doi:10.1177/0333102419893823
  15. May A. Facial pain is coming home. Cephalalgia. 2020;40(3):227–228. doi:10.1177/0333102420908506
  16. Pigg M, Nixdorf DR, Law AS, et al. New International Classification of Orofacial Pain: What is in it for endodontists? J Endod. 2021;47(3):345–357. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2020.12.002
  17. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia. 2018;38(1):1–211. doi:10.1177/0333102417738202
  18. Zieliński G, Pająk-Zielińska B, Ginszt M. A meta-analysis of the global prevalence of temporomandibular disorders. J Clin Med. 2024;13(5):1365. doi:10.3390/jcm13051365
  19. Garstka AA, Kozowska L, Kijak K, et al. Accurate diagnosis and treatment of painful temporomandibular disorders: A literature review supplemented by own clinical experience. Pain Res Manag. 2023;2023:1002235. doi:10.1155/2023/1002235
  20. Kapos FP, Exposto FG, Oyarzo JF, Durham J. Temporomandibular disorders: A review of current concepts in aetiology, diagnosis and management. Oral Surg. 2020;13(4):321–334. doi:10.1111/ors.12473
  21. Seweryn P, Orzeszek SM, Waliszewska-Prosół M, et al. Relationship between pain severity, satisfaction with life and the quality of sleep in Polish adults with temporomandibular disorders. Dent Med Probl. 2023;60(4):609–617. doi:10.17219/dmp/171894
  22. Zieliński G. Quo vadis temporomandibular disorders? By 2050, the global prevalence of TMD may approach 44%. J Clin Med. 2025;14(13):4414. doi:10.3390/jcm14134414
  23. Kolpashnikova K, Desai S. Fear of falling: Scoping review and topic analysis protocol. BMJ Open. 2023;13(2):e066652. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066652
  24. Zieliński G. Effect size guidelines for individual and group differences in physiotherapy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2025;106(12):1844–1849. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2025.05.013
  25. Huang X, Zhu D, Cao Y, Li W, Lai J, Ren Y. Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of recurrence and metastasis of different surgical techniques for non-small cell lung cancer. BMJ Open. 2024;14(8):e086503. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086503
  26. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
  27. Wohlin C. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery; 2014:1–10. doi:10.1145/2601248.2601268
  28. Zieliński G, Pająk-Zielińska B, Pająk A, Wójcicki M, Litko-Rola M, Ginszt M. Global co-occurrence of bruxism and temporomandibular disorders: A meta-regression analysis. Dent Med Probl. 2025;62(2):309–321. doi:10.17219/dmp/201376
  29. Schwarzer G, Chemaitelly H, Abu-Raddad LJ, Rücker G. Seriously misleading results using inverse of Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation in meta-analysis of single proportions. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(3):476–483. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1348
  30. Barendregt JJ, Doi SA, Lee YY, Norman RE, Vos T. Meta-analysis of prevalence. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;67(11):974–978. doi:10.1136/jech-2013-203104
  31. Stijnen T, Hamza TH, Ozdemir P. Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse data. Stat Med. 2010;29(29):3046–3067. doi:10.1002/sim.4040
  32. Lin L, Chu H. Meta-analysis of proportions using generalized linear mixed models. Epidemiology. 2020;31(5):713–717. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000001232
  33. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):97–111. doi:10.1002/jrsm.12
  34. Agresti A, Coull BA. Approximate is better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat. 1998;52(2):119–126. doi:10.2307/2685469
  35. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–188. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
  36. Viechtbauer W. Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. J Educ Behav Stat. 2005;30(3):261–293. doi:10.3102/10769986030003261
  37. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–1558. doi:10.1002/sim.1186
  38. Viechtbauer W, Cheung MWL. Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):112–125. doi:10.1002/jrsm.11
  39. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–634. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
  40. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: A comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18(20):2693–2708. PMID:10521860.
  41. Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: A practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health. 2019;22(4):153–160. doi:10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117
  42. Harrer M, Cuijpers P, Furukawa TA, Ebert DD. dmetar: Companion R package for the guide ‘Doing meta-analysis in R’. R package version 0.0.9000. Published 2019. https://dmetar.protectlab.org. Accessed November 16, 2023.
  43. Makowski D, Lüdecke D, Patil I, Thériault R, Ben-Shachar MS, Wiernik BM. Automated results reporting as a practical tool to improve reproducibility and methodological best practices adoption. CRAN; 2023. doi:10.32614/CRAN.package.report
  44. Wickham H, François R, Henry L, Müller K, Vaughan D. dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 1.1.3. Published 2023. https://cran.r-project.org/package=dplyr. Accessed November 16, 2023.
  45. Bölük C, Börü ÜT, Taşdemir M. The prevalence of trigeminal neuralgia in Turkey: A population-based study. Neurol Res. 2020;42(11):968–972. doi:10.1080/01616412.2020.1794372
  46. Koopman JS, Dieleman JP, Huygen FJ, De Mos M, Martin CG, Sturkenboom MC. Incidence of facial pain in the general population. Pain. 2009;147(1–3):122–127. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.08.023
  47. Dua A, Chang KV. Myofascial pain syndrome. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Islands, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499882. Accessed September 11, 2025.
  48. LeResche L. Epidemiology of temporomandibular disorders: Implications for the investigation of etiologic factors. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1997;8(3):291–305. doi:10.1177/10454411970080030401
  49. Yap AU, Lai YC, Ho HCW. Prevalence of temporomandibular disorders and their associated factors in Confucian heritage cultures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2024;51(10):2169–2194. doi:10.1111/joor.13779
  50. Kutkut A, White R, Awad M, et al. Prevalence of decay and tooth condition changes adjacent to restored dental implants: A retrospective radiographic study. J Oral Implantol. 2024;50(5):474–480. doi:10.1563/aaid-joi-D-24-00044
  51. Albandar JM. Epidemiology and risk factors of periodontal diseases. Dent Clin North Am. 2005;49(3):517–532. doi:10.1016/j.cden.2005.03.003
  52. Galler KM, Weber M, Korkmaz Y, Widbiller M, Feuerer M. Inflammatory response mechanisms of the dentine–pulp complex and the periapical tissues. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(3):1480. doi:10.3390/ijms22031480
  53. Kotowska-Rodziewicz A, Zalewska A, Maciejczyk M. A review of preclinical and clinical studies in support of the role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in dentistry. Med Sci Monit. 2023;29:e940635. doi:10.12659/MSM.940635
  54. Chichorro JG, Porreca F, Sessle B. Mechanisms of craniofacial pain. Cephalalgia. 2017;37(7):613–626. doi:10.1177/0333102417704187
  55. Mustafa NS, Kashmoola MA, Mustafa Al-Ahmad BE, Hazman Fansuri MA, Mohamad Jurimi NH, Kashmoola S. A retrospective study on the etiological factors of orofacial pain in a Malaysian sample. Eur J Dent. 2022;16(2):302–306. doi:10.1055/s-0041-1735443
  56. Gustin SM, Peck CC, Wilcox SL, Nash PG, Murray GM, Henderson LA. Different pain, different brain: Thalamic anatomy in neuropathic and non-neuropathic chronic pain syndromes. J Neurosci. 2011;31(16):5956–5964. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5980-10.2011
  57. Renton T, Wilson NH. Understanding and managing dental and orofacial pain in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66(646):236–237. doi:10.3399/bjgp16X684901
  58. Haller S, Etienne L, Kövari E, Varoquaux AD, Urbach H, Becker M. Imaging of neurovascular compression syndromes: Trigeminal neuralgia, hemifacial spasm, vestibular paroxysmia, and glossopharyngeal neuralgia. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(8):1384–1392. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4683
  59. Schwaiger J, Kiechl S, Seppi K, et al. Prevalence of primary headaches and cranial neuralgias in men and women aged 55–94 years (Bruneck Study). Cephalalgia. 2009;29(2):179–187. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2982.2008.01705.x
  60. Wettervik TS, Snel D, Kristiansson P, Ericson H, Abu Hamdeh S. Incidence of trigeminal neuralgia: A population-based study in Central Sweden. Eur J Pain. 2023;27(5):580–587. doi:10.1002/ejp.2081
  61. Zieliński G, Pająk A, Wójcicki M. Global prevalence of sleep bruxism and awake bruxism in pediatric and adult populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2024;13(14):4259. doi:10.3390/jcm13144259
  62. Schiffman E, Ohrbach R, Truelove E, et al. 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. J Oral Facial Pain Headache. 2014;28(1):6–27. doi:10.11607/jop.1151
  63. Osiewicz M, Ciapała B, Bolt K, Kołodziej P, Więckiewicz M, Ohrbach R. Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD): Polish assessment instruments. Dent Med Probl. 2024;61(1):5–8. doi:10.17219/dmp/181149
  64. Zieliński G, Więckiewicz M. New effect size and sample size guidelines in dentistry. Dent Med Probl. 2025;62(5):907–917. doi:10.17219/dmp/210478
  65. Nichols E, Hayes-Larson E. Common methodological issues in observational epidemiological studies of older adults. BMJ Med. 2025;4(1):e001332. doi:10.1136/bmjmed-2025-001332
  66. Andrejeva N, Baumeister D, Eich W, Tesarz J. Psychosocial factors in the prevention of pain [in German]. Schmerz. 2021;35(1):21–29. doi:10.1007/s00482-020-00523-4
© Wroclaw Medical University