Diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) for children and adolescents: An international Delphi study-Part 1-Development of Axis I.

BACKGROUND: Since in children and adolescence prevalence is assessed mainly on self-reported or proxy-reported signs and symptoms; there is a need to develop a more comprehensive standardised process for the collection of clinical information and the diagnosis of TMD in these populations. OBJECTIVE: To develop new instruments and to adapt the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) for the evaluation of TMD in children and adolescents. METHOD: A modified Delphi method was used to seek international consensus among TMD experts. Fourteen clinicians and researchers in the field of oro-facial pain and TMD worldwide were invited to participate in a workshop initiated by the International Network for Orofacial Pain and Related Disorders Methodology (INfORM scientific network) at the General Session of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR, London 2018), as the first step in the Delphi process. Participants discussed the protocols required to make physical diagnoses included in the Axis I of the DC/TMD. Thereafter, nine experts in the field were added, and the first Delphi round was created. This survey included 60 statements for Axis I, and the experts were asked to respond to each statement on a five-item Likert scale ranging from 'Strongly disagree' to 'Strongly agree'. Consensus level was set at 80% agreement for the first round, and at 70% for the next. RESULTS: After three rounds of the Delphi process, a consensus among TMD experts was achieved and two adapted DC/TMD protocols for Axis I physical diagnoses for children and adolescents were developed. CONCLUSION: Through international consensus among TMD experts, this study adapted the Axis I of the DC/TMD for use in evaluating TMD in children and adolescents.

Orofacial pain education in dentistry: A path to improving patient care and reducing the population burden of chronic pain.

Dentists stand in an optimal position to prevent and manage patients suffering from chronic orofacial pain (OFP) disorders, such as temporomandibular disorders, burning mouth syndrome, trigeminal neuralgia, persistent idiopathic dentoalveolar pain, among others. However, there are consistent reports highlighting a lack of knowledge and confidence in diagnosing and treating OFP among dental students, recent graduates, and trained dentists, which leads to misdiagnosis, unnecessary costs, delay in appropriate care and possible harm to patients. Education in OFP is necessary to improve the quality of general dental care and reduce individual and societal burden of chronic pain through prevention and improved quality of life for OFP patients. Our aims are to emphasize the goals of OFP education, to identify barriers for its implementation, and to suggest possible avenues to improve OFP education in general, postgraduate, and continuing dental education levels, including proposed minimum OFP competencies for all dentists. Moreover, patient perspectives are also incorporated, including a testimony from a person with OFP. General dentists, OFP experts, educators, researchers, patients, and policy makers need to combine efforts in order to successfully address the urgent need for quality OFP education.

Predictors of Long-Term Temporomandibular Disorder Pain Intensity: An 8-Year Cohort Study.

AIMS: To investigate, in individuals with pain-related temporomandibular disorder (TMD), the association of long-term pain intensity with baseline health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and jaw functional limitation. METHODS: Of 513 cases with baseline pain-related TMD (masticatory muscle and/or temporomandibular joint [TMJ] pain), 273 were reevaluated after 8 years, and 258 of them had complete baseline data for Jaw Functional Limitation Scale (JFLS) scores and HRQoL measured by the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores of the 12-item Short Form Health Survey and follow-up data for Characteristic Pain Intensity (CPI) from the Graded Chronic Pain Scale. Secondary analyses of existing data quantified the effects of primary (PCS, MCS) and secondary (JFLS) predictors on follow-up CPI by using multivariable linear regression. Sensitivity analyses considered differences between the included participants (n = 258) and those who were not included (n = 255) by using inverse probability weighting. Interactions of baseline predictors with age, sex, and baseline CPI were evaluated using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: The score for baseline PCS, but not MCS or JFLS, was associated with follow-up CPI (P = .012). One standard deviation (SD = 9.0)-higher baseline PCS score predicted an overall 3.2-point-lower follow-up CPI (95% confidence interval -5.8 to -0.7) after adjusting for age, sex, MCS, JFLS, and baseline CPI scores. However, the effect of PCS score was not uniform: the association between PCS and follow-up CPI scores was statistically significant for participants with baseline CPI ≥ 51.3/100 and clinically significant for participants with baseline CPI ≥ 68.7/100. Adjustment for TMD treatments and sensitivity analyses had negligible effect. CONCLUSION: In participants with moderate to severe baseline TMD pain intensity, higher baseline physical HRQoL predicted lower TMD pain intensity at 8 years follow-up. PCS score could contribute to a multifactorial long-term TMD pain prediction model.