Integrating person-centered care into dental education: An oral medicine perspective.

Dental education is moving toward models of education and care that are person-centered. The purpose of this article is to explore and describe the teaching and patient care model (the attending-based model) used for the past 50 years in the oral medicine department at one dental education institution. This article briefly discusses how this teaching model promotes person-centered care and the biopsychosocial model, while highlighting some of the barriers, benefits, and opportunities to wider adoption in dental education.

A cross-sectional study of temporomandibular joint coronal plane disk position: imaging reliability and clinical utility.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability, frequency, and clinical significance of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) medial and lateral disk positions, observed in the coronal-oblique plane, to determine their importance in clinical diagnosis and for routine imaging. STUDY DESIGN: This cross-sectional study involved secondary data analysis (clinical and imaging) of 401 participants of the TMJ Impact Study. We used the χ2 statistic to evaluate the associations between coronal disk positions with (1) anterior disk displacements with reduction and without reduction; and (2) familiar TMJ pain resulting from excursive movements and palpation, range of motion, and joint sounds. RESULTS: Anterior disk displacements of any type occurred in 67.5% of joints; in contrast, medial and lateral disk positions occurred in 16% and 24% of joints, respectively. Radiologist reliability was as follows: sagittal posterior band position: right κ = 0.68, left κ = 0.60, average 84% agreement; and medial or lateral disk position: right κ = 0.36, left κ = 0.32, average 70% agreement. Medial and lateral disk positions were associated with sagittal displacements (P < .001). However, there were no associations between medial and lateral disk positions and familiar pain, range of motion, and joint sounds. CONCLUSIONS: Coronal disk position does not contribute to clinical symptomatology or findings and currently lacks sufficient evidence to support its inclusion into standard TMJ imaging protocols or into a clinical diagnostic category.

Osteoarthritis of the temporomandibular joint and increase of the horizontal condylar angle: a longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: Our previous study of patients with unilateral temporomandibular joint (TMJ) osteoarthritis (OA) showed that the affected joints had greater horizontal condylar angle (HCA) compared with the contralateral unaffected joints. However, it was unclear whether the HCA changes preceded or were the result of OA changes. The aim of this longitudinal study was to investigate the relationship between HCA and OA progression. STUDY DESIGN: In total, 127 patients (with or without TMJ disorders) completed baseline and follow-up examinations (average time to follow-up 7.9 years). Generalized estimating equation models were used to account for correlation of observations within the same patients. RESULTS: (1) HCA was greater in OA-affected joints than in unaffected joints (P = .04). (2) Increased HCA at follow-up was associated with change in joint status from no OA to OA. (P = .001). (3) Baseline HCA value alone did not predict future OA diagnosis. (4) All OA changes in fossa/articular eminence morphology, and some combinations of condylar changes, were associated with a greater HCA. (5) OA diagnosis was associated with pain during maximum opening (P = .005) and pain history (P = .002). (6) Aging alone was not correlated with increased HCA. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical progression of OA preceded increases in HCA. HCA alone did not predict OA development.

Adjuncts for the evaluation of potentially malignant disorders in the oral cavity: Diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis-a report of the American Dental Association.

BACKGROUND: Oral squamous cell carcinoma is the most common manifestation of malignancy in the oral cavity. Adjuncts are available for clinicians to evaluate lesions that seem potentially malignant. In this systematic review, the authors summarized the available evidence on patient-important outcomes, diagnostic test accuracy (DTA), and patients' values and preferences (PVPs) when using adjuncts for the evaluation of clinically evident lesions in the oral cavity. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched for preexisting systematic reviews and assessed their quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews tool. The authors updated the selected reviews and searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials and DTA and PVPs studies. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the certainty in the evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: The authors identified 4 existing reviews. DTA reviews included 37 studies. The authors retrieved 7,534 records, of which 9 DTA and 10 PVPs studies were eligible. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of adjuncts ranged from 0.39 to 0.96 for the evaluation of innocuous lesions and from 0.31 to 0.95 for the evaluation of suspicious lesions. Cytologic testing used in suspicious lesions appears to have the highest accuracy among adjuncts (sensitivity, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 0.98; specificity, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 0.99; low-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Cytologic testing appears to be the most accurate adjunct among those included in this review. The main concerns are the high rate of false-positive results and serious issues of risk of bias and indirectness of the evidence. Clinicians should remain skeptical about the potential benefit of any adjunct in clinical practice.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the evaluation of potentially malignant disorders in the oral cavity: A report of the American Dental Association.

BACKGROUND: An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs and the Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry conducted a systematic review and formulated clinical recommendations to inform primary care clinicians about the potential use of adjuncts as triage tools for the evaluation of lesions, including potentially malignant disorders (PMDs), in the oral cavity. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: This is an update of the ADA's 2010 recommendations on the early diagnosis of PMDs and oral squamous cell carcinoma. The authors conducted a systematic search of the literature in MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials and diagnostic test accuracy studies. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in the evidence and to move from the evidence to the decisions. RESULTS: The panel formulated 1 good practice statement and 6 clinical recommendations that concluded that no available adjuncts demonstrated sufficient diagnostic test accuracy to support their routine use as triage tools during the evaluation of lesions in the oral cavity. For patients seeking care for suspicious lesions, immediate performance of a biopsy or referral to a specialist remains the single most important recommendation for clinical practice. In exceptional cases, when patients decline a biopsy or live in rural areas with limited access to care, the panel suggested that cytologic testing may be used to initiate the diagnostic process until a biopsy can be performed (conditional recommendation, low-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The authors urge clinicians to remain alert and take diligent action when they identify a PMD. The authors emphasize the need for counseling because patients may delay diagnosis because of anxiety and denial.

The American Dental Association Caries Classification System for clinical practice: a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs.

BACKGROUND: The caries lesion, the most commonly observed sign of dental caries disease, is the cumulative result of an imbalance in the dynamic demineralization and remineralization process that causes a net mineral loss over time. A classification system to categorize the location, site of origin, extent, and when possible, activity level of caries lesions consistently over time is necessary to determine which clinical treatments and therapeutic interventions are appropriate to control and treat these lesions. METHODS: In 2008, the American Dental Association (ADA) convened a group of experts to develop an easy-to-implement caries classification system. The ADA Council on Scientific Affairs subsequently compiled information from these discussions to create the ADA Caries Classification System (CCS) presented in this article. CONCLUSIONS: The ADA CCS offers clinicians the capability to capture the spectrum of caries disease presentations ranging from clinically unaffected (sound) tooth structure to noncavitated initial lesions to extensively cavitated advanced lesions. The ADA CCS supports a broad range of clinical management options necessary to treat both noncavitated and cavitated caries lesions. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The ADA CCS is available for implementation in clinical practice to evaluate its usability, reliability, and validity. Feedback from clinical practitioners and researchers will allow system improvement. Use of the ADA CCS will offer standardized data that can be used to improve the scientific rationale for the treatment of all stages of caries disease.

The use of prophylactic antibiotics prior to dental procedures in patients with prosthetic joints: Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for dental practitioners--a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs.

BACKGROUND: A panel of experts (the 2014 Panel) convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs developed an evidence-based clinical practice guideline (CPG) on the use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with prosthetic joints who are undergoing dental procedures. This CPG is intended to clarify the "Prevention of Orthopaedic Implant Infection in Patients Undergoing Dental Procedures: Evidence-based Guideline and Evidence Report," which was developed and published by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the American Dental Association (the 2012 Panel). TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The 2014 Panel based the current CPG on literature search results and direct evidence contained in the comprehensive systematic review published by the 2012 Panel, as well as the results from an updated literature search. The 2014 Panel identified 4 case-control studies. RESULTS: The 2014 Panel judged that the current best evidence failed to demonstrate an association between dental procedures and prosthetic joint infection (PJI). The 2014 Panel also presented information about antibiotic resistance, adverse drug reactions, and costs associated with prescribing antibiotics for PJI prophylaxis. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: The 2014 Panel made the following clinical recommendation: In general, for patients with prosthetic joint implants, prophylactic antibiotics are not recommended prior to dental procedures to prevent prosthetic joint infection. The practitioner and patient should consider possible clinical circumstances that may suggest the presence of a significant medical risk in providing dental care without antibiotic prophylaxis, as well as the known risks of frequent or widespread antibiotic use. As part of the evidence-based approach to care, this clinical recommendation should be integrated with the practitioner's professional judgment and the patient's needs and preferences.

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†.

AIMS: The original Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic algorithms have been demonstrated to be reliable. However, the Validation Project determined that the RDC/TMD Axis I validity was below the target sensitivity of ≥ 0.70 and specificity of ≥ 0.95. Consequently, these empirical results supported the development of revised RDC/TMD Axis I diagnostic algorithms that were subsequently demonstrated to be valid for the most common pain-related TMD and for one temporomandibular joint (TMJ) intra-articular disorder. The original RDC/TMD Axis II instruments were shown to be both reliable and valid. Working from these findings and revisions, two international consensus workshops were convened, from which recommendations were obtained for the finalization of new Axis I diagnostic algorithms and new Axis II instruments. METHODS: Through a series of workshops and symposia, a panel of clinical and basic science pain experts modified the revised RDC/TMD Axis I algorithms by using comprehensive searches of published TMD diagnostic literature followed by review and consensus via a formal structured process. The panel's recommendations for further revision of the Axis I diagnostic algorithms were assessed for validity by using the Validation Project's data set, and for reliability by using newly collected data from the ongoing TMJ Impact Project-the follow-up study to the Validation Project. New Axis II instruments were identified through a comprehensive search of the literature providing valid instruments that, relative to the RDC/TMD, are shorter in length, are available in the public domain, and currently are being used in medical settings. RESULTS: The newly recommended Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) Axis I protocol includes both a valid screener for detecting any pain-related TMD as well as valid diagnostic criteria for differentiating the most common pain-related TMD (sensitivity ≥ 0.86, specificity ≥ 0.98) and for one intra-articular disorder (sensitivity of 0.80 and specificity of 0.97). Diagnostic criteria for other common intra-articular disorders lack adequate validity for clinical diagnoses but can be used for screening purposes. Inter-examiner reliability for the clinical assessment associated with the validated DC/TMD criteria for pain-related TMD is excellent (kappa ≥ 0.85). Finally, a comprehensive classification system that includes both the common and less common TMD is also presented. The Axis II protocol retains selected original RDC/TMD screening instruments augmented with new instruments to assess jaw function as well as behavioral and additional psychosocial factors. The Axis II protocol is divided into screening and comprehensive self report instrument sets. The screening instruments' 41 questions assess pain intensity, pain-related disability, psychological distress, jaw functional limitations, and parafunctional behaviors, and a pain drawing is used to assess locations of pain. The comprehensive instruments, composed of 81 questions, assess in further detail jaw functional limitations and psychological distress as well as additional constructs of anxiety and presence of comorbid pain conditions. CONCLUSION: The recommended evidence-based new DC/TMD protocol is appropriate for use in both clinical and research settings. More comprehensive instruments augment short and simple screening instruments for Axis I and Axis II. These validated instruments allow for identification of patients with a range of simple to complex TMD presentations.

Influence of temple headache frequency on physical functioning and emotional functioning in subjects with temporomandibular disorder pain.

AIMS: To investigate the relationship of headache frequency with patient-reported physical functioning and emotional functioning in temporomandibular disorder (TMD) subjects with concurrent temple headache. METHODS: The Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD) Validation Project identified, as a subset of 614 TMD cases and 91 controls (n = 705), 309 subjects with concurrent TMD pain diagnoses (RDC/TMD) and temple headache. The temple headaches were subdivided into infrequent, frequent, and chronic headache according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, second edition (ICHD-II). Study variables included self-report measures of physical functioning (Jaw Function Limitation Scale [JFLS], Graded Chronic Pain Scale [GCPS], Short Form-12 [SF-12]) and emotional functioning (depression and anxiety as measured by the Symptom Checklist-90R/SCL-90R). Differences among the three headache subgroups were characterized by increasing headache frequency. The relationship between ordered headache frequency and physical as well as emotional functioning was analyzed using linear regression and trend tests for proportions. RESULTS: Physical functioning, as assessed with the JFLS (P < .001), SF-12 (P < .001), and GCPS (P < .001), was significantly associated with increased headache frequency. Emotional functioning, reflected in depression and anxiety, was also associated with increased frequency of headache (both P < .001). CONCLUSION: Headache frequency was substantially correlated with reduced physical functioning and emotional functioning in subjects with TMD and concurrent temple headaches. A secondary finding was that headache was precipitated by jaw activities more often in subjects with more frequent temple headaches.

Development of a brief and effective temporomandibular disorder pain screening questionnaire: reliability and validity.

BACKGROUND: Available screening instruments for identifying temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) exhibit methodological or logistic limitations. The authors conducted a study to develop and assess the validity of a self-report instrument in screening patients for pain-related TMDs. METHODS: By using psychometric methods for item selection, the authors developed short (three-item) and long (six-item) versions of the questionnaire and evaluated them for validity among 504 participants. RESULTS: Internal reliability was excellent, with coefficient α values of 0.87 and 0.93 for the short and long versions, respectively. When the authors dichotomized instrument scores at optimal thresholds, both versions had a sensitivity of 99 percent and a specificity of 97 percent for correct classification of the presence or absence of TMD. The specificity was at least 95 percent in the correct identification of people with nonpainful TMJ disorders or headahce without TMD pain. CONCLUSIONS: With use of appropriate psychometric methodology, the selected items exhibited excellent content validity. The excellent levels of reliability, sensitivity and specificity demonstrate the validity and usefulness of this instrument. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Using this instrument will allow clinicians to identify more readily-and cost-effectively-most patients with painful TMD conditions for whom early and reliable identification would have a significant effect on diagnosis, treatment and prognosis.

Narrow band (light) imaging of oral mucosa in routine dental patients. Part I: Assessment of value in detection of mucosal changes.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the value of adding narrow band (light) imaging (NBI) to the standard oral soft tissue examination process used to detect mucosal change. A total of 620 dental patients who came to the clinic for regular dental evaluation or for treatment of acute dental problems were given a standard oral soft tissue examination by dental students under faculty supervision. The results of the white light examination were recorded after the tissues were examined with NBI, at which point areas with a loss of fluorescence (LOF) were recorded. The nature of the tissue change was classified clinically as normal variation, inflammatory, traumatic, dysplastic, or other, and patients were categorized depending on their clinical findings: normal, need follow-up visit, or immediate biopsy. Risk factors related to oral dysplasia also were recorded. The addition of NBI added between one and two minutes to the examination process. Of the 620 examinations, an area with an LOF suggestive of pathology was detected in 69 subjects (11.1%). After a second immediate evaluation, 28 of the 69 subjects were scheduled for follow-up or biopsy. None of the lesions discovered in these 28 subjects had been detected using standard (white light) examination. Adding NBI to the routine clinical examination resulted in detection of changes not seen with white light examination in 11.1% of patients; of these, a small but important number were found to have otherwise undetected persistent changes representing inflammatory lesions or potentially dangerous oral dysplasia. Adding NBI as an adjunctive diagnostic procedure improved the quality and outcome of the examination process.

Influence of headache frequency on clinical signs and symptoms of TMD in subjects with temple headache and TMD pain.

The relationship of the frequency of temple headache to signs and symptoms of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders (TMD) was investigated in a subset of a larger convenience sample of community TMD cases. The study sample included 86 painful TMD, nonheadache subjects; 309 painful TMD subjects with varied frequency of temple headaches; and 149 subjects without painful TMD or headache for descriptive comparison. Painful TMD included Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders diagnoses of myofascial pain, TMJ arthralgia, and TMJ osteoarthritis. Mild to moderate-intensity temple headaches were classified by frequency using criteria based on the International Classification of Headache Disorder, 2nd edition, classification of tension-type headache. Outcomes included TMD signs and symptoms (pain duration, pain intensity, number of painful masticatory sites on palpation, mandibular range of motion), pressure pain thresholds, and temple headache resulting from masticatory provocation tests. Trend analyses across the painful TMD groups showed a substantial trend for aggravation of all of the TMD signs and symptoms associated with increased frequency of the temple headaches. In addition, increased headache frequency showed significant trends associated with reduced PPTs and reported temple headache with masticatory provocation tests. In conclusion, these findings suggest that these headaches may be TMD related, as well as suggesting a possible role for peripheral and central sensitization in TMD patients.

Gender differences in pain modulation by diffuse noxious inhibitory controls: a systematic review.

Over the last decade, extensive research has demonstrated sex differences in pain perception and modulation. Several factors have been proposed to account for the differences observed between men and women, including pain modulation through diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (DNIC). Studies investigating sex differences in DNIC have shown mixed results, with some reporting decreased DNIC effect in women compared with men, while others found no difference in DNIC between the sexes. Additional studies have investigated DNIC in both sexes without focusing on sex differences. This systematic review aimed to answer the following question: "In humans of reproductive age without chronic pain, are women more likely than men to have decreased Diffuse Noxious Inhibitory Controls?" Relevant studies were identified by computerized searches of Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Biosis, Web of Science, PsycInfo and Cochrane (from January 1980 through February 2009). The search was limited to human studies with no language restriction. The initial search identified 718 titles and abstracts. Seventeen studies were included in the final stage and data regarding age and gender of participants, methodology and outcome measurements were extracted and analyzed. The majority of studies using pain report as the outcome found significantly more efficient DNIC in males than females (mean female/male ratio=0.54). Studies evaluating pain thresholds and nociceptive flexion reflex indicated the opposite when simply averaged across studies; however, weighted analyses of threshold found more efficient DNIC in males. Gender differences in DNIC effect depend on both the experimental methodology and the modes of measurement of the effect.

The Research Diagnostic Criteria For Temporomandibular Disorders. II: reliability of Axis I diagnoses and selected clinical measures.

AIMS: The primary aim was to determine new estimates for the measurement reliability of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic algorithms. A second aim was to present data on the reliability of key clinical measures of the diagnostic algorithms. METHODS: Kappa (k), computed by generalized estimate equation procedures, was selected as the primary estimate of interexaminer reliability. Intersite reliability of six examiners from three study sites was assessed annually over the 5-year period of the RDC/TMD Validation Project. Intrasite reliability was monitored throughout the validation study by comparing RDC/TMD data collections performed on the same day by the test examiner and a criterion examiner. RESULTS: Intersite calibrations included a total of 180 subjects. Intersite reliability of RDC/TMD diagnoses was excellent (k > 0.75) when myofascial pain diagnoses (Ia or Ib) were grouped. Good reliability was observed for discrete myofascial pain diagnoses Ia (k = 0.62) and Ib (k = 0.58), for disc displacement with reduction (k = 0.63), disc displacement without reduction with limited opening (k = 0.62), arthralgia (k = 0.55), and when joint pain (IIIa or IIIb) was grouped (k = 0.59). Reliability of less frequently observed diagnoses such as disc displacements without reduction without limited opening, and osteoarthrosis (IIIb, IIIc), was poor to marginally fair (k = 0.31-0.43). Intrasite monitoring results (n = 705) approximated intersite reliability estimates. The greatest difference in paired estimates was 0.18 (IIc). CONCLUSION: Reliability of the RDC/TMD protocol was good to excellent for myofascial pain, arthralgia, disc displacement with reduction, and disc displacement without reduction with limited opening. Reliability was poor to marginally fair for disc displacement without reduction without limited opening and osteoarthrosis.

The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. III: validity of Axis I diagnoses.

AIMS: To estimate the criterion validity of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I TMD diagnoses. METHODS: A combined total of 614 TMD community and clinic cases and 91 controls were examined at three study sites. RDC/TMD Axis I diagnoses were algorithmically derived from an examination performed by calibrated dental hygienists. Reference standards ("gold standards") were established by means of consensus diagnoses rendered by two TMD experts using all available clinical data, including imaging findings. Validity of the RDC/TMD Axis I TMD diagnoses was estimated relative to the reference-standard diagnoses (gold standard diagnoses). Target sensitivity and specificity were set a priori at greater than or equal to 0.70 and greater than or equal to 0.95, respectively. RESULTS: Target sensitivity and specificity were not observed for any of the eight RDC/TMD diagnoses. The highest validity was achieved for Group Ia myofascial pain (sensitivity 0.65, specificity 0.92) and Group Ib myofascial pain with limited opening (sensitivity 0.79, specificity 0.92). Target sensitivity and specificity were observed only when both Group I diagnoses were combined (0.87 and 0.98, respectively). For Group II (disc displacements) and Group III (arthralgia, arthritis, arthrosis) diagnoses, all estimates for sensitivity were below target (0.03 to 0.53), and specificity ranged from below to on target (0.86 to 0.99). CONCLUSION: The RDC/TMD Axis I TMD diagnoses did not reach the targets set at sensitivity of > or = 0.70 and specificity of > or = 0.95. Target validity was obtained only for myofascial pain without differentiation between normal and limited opening. Revision of the current Axis I TMD diagnostic algorithms is warranted to improve their validity.

The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. I: overview and methodology for assessment of validity.

AIMS: The purpose of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Validation Project was to assess the diagnostic validity of this examination protocol. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the project's methodology, descriptive statistics, and data for the study participant sample. This article also details the development of reliable methods to establish the reference standards for assessing criterion validity of the Axis I RDC/TMD diagnoses. METHODS: The Axis I reference standards were based on the consensus of two criterion examiners independently performing a comprehensive history, clinical examination, and evaluation of imaging. Intersite reliability was assessed annually for criterion examiners and radiologists. Criterion examination reliability was also assessed within study sites. RESULTS: Study participant demographics were comparable to those of participants in previous studies using the RDC/TMD. Diagnostic agreement of the criterion examiners with each other and with the consensus-based reference standards was excellent with all kappas > or = 0.81, except for osteoarthrosis (moderate agreement, k = 0.53). Intrasite criterion examiner agreement with reference standards was excellent (k > or = 0.95). Intersite reliability of the radiologists for detecting computed tomography-disclosed osteoarthrosis and magnetic resonance imaging-disclosed disc displacement was good to excellent (k = 0.71 and 0.84, respectively). CONCLUSION: The Validation Project study population was appropriate for assessing the reliability and validity of the RDC/TMD Axis I and II. The reference standards used to assess the validity of Axis I TMD were based on reliable and clinically credible methods.

The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. VI: future directions.

The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Validation Project has provided the first comprehensive assessment of reliability and validity of the original Axis I and II. In addition, Axis I of the RDC/TMD was revised with estimates of reliability and validity. These findings are reported in the five preceding articles in this series. The aim of this article is to present further revisions of Axis I and II for consideration by the TMD research and clinical communities. Potential Axis I revisions include addressing concerns with orofacial pain differential diagnosis and changes in nomenclature in an attempt to provide improved consistency with other musculoskeletal diagnostic systems. In addition, expansion of the RDC/TMD to include the less common TMD conditions and disorders would make it more comprehensive and clinically useful. The original standards for diagnostic sensitivity ( < or = 0.70) and specificity (< or = 0.95) should be reconsidered to reflect changes in the field since the RDC/TMD was published in 1992. Pertaining to Axis II, current recommendations for all chronic pain conditions include standardized instruments and expansion of the domains assessed. In addition, there is need for improved clinical efficiency of Axis II instruments and for exploring methods to better integrate Axis I and II in clinical settings.