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.

The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. V: methods used to establish and validate revised Axis I diagnostic algorithms.

AIMS: To derive reliable and valid revised Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic algorithms for clinical TMD diagnoses. METHODS: The multisite RDC/TMD Validation Project's dataset (614 TMD community and clinic cases, and 91 controls) was used to derive revised algorithms for Axis I TMD diagnoses. Validity of diagnostic algorithms was assessed relative to reference standards, the latter based on consensus diagnoses rendered by two TMD experts using criterion examination data, including temporomandibular joint imaging. Cutoff points for target validity were sensitivity > or = 0.70 and specificity > or = 0.95. Reliability of revised algorithms was assessed in 27 study participants. RESULTS: Revised algorithm sensitivity and specificity exceeded the target levels for myofascial pain (0.82, 0.99, respectively) and myofascial pain with limited opening (0.93, 0.97). Combining diagnoses for any myofascial pain showed sensitivity of 0.91 and specificity of 1.00. For joint pain, target sensitivity and specificity were observed (0.92, 0.96) when arthralgia and osteoarthritis were combined as "any joint pain." Disc displacement without reduction with limited opening demonstrated target sensitivity and specificity (0.80, 0.97). For the other disc displacement diagnoses, osteoarthritis and osteoarthrosis, sensitivity was below target (0.35 to 0.53), and specificity ranged from 0.80 to meeting target. Kappa for revised algorithm diagnostic reliability was > or =0.63. CONCLUSION: Revised RDC/TMD Axis I TMD diagnostic algorithms are recommended for myofascial pain and joint pain as reliable and valid. However, revised clinical criteria alone, without recourse to imaging, are inadequate for valid diagnosis of two of the three disc displacements as well as osteoarthritis and osteoarthrosis.

Brief group cognitive-behavioral intervention for temporomandibular disorders.

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are currently viewed as an interrelated set of clinical conditions presenting with signs and symptoms in masticatory and related muscles of the head and neck, and the soft tissue and bony components of the temporomandibular joint. Epidemiologic and clinical studies of TMD confirm its status as a chronic pain problem. In this report we present results from a randomized clinical trial which compared, at 3- and 12-month follow-ups, the effects of usual TMD treatment on TMD pain and related physical and psychological variables with the effects of a cognitive-behavioral (CB) intervention delivered to small groups of patients before usual TMD treatment began. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a minimal CB intervention followed by dental TMD treatment enhanced the effects of usual clinical dental treatment. A second purpose of the study was to determine whether patients classified as high in somatization and psychosocial dysfunction would respond less favorably to this minimal intervention than would those low in somatization and dysfunction. Patients who participated in the CB intervention followed by usual treatment showed greater long-term decreases in reported pain level and pain interference in daily activities than did patients who received only usual treatment. The benefits of CB intervention were not seen when the CB and UT groups were compared at 3-month follow-up. During the 3-12-month follow-up interval, however, the UT group maintained essentially the same level of improvement in characteristic pain while the CB group continued to improve, as hypothesized. During this same follow-up interval, the CB group also showed a strong trend toward continued improvement in pain interference. Such effects were not observed for depression, somatization, or clinical measures of jaw range of motion. Additionally, as hypothesized, dysfunctional chronic pain patients did not appear to benefit from the brief CB intervention. Intent to treat analyses were also performed to assess generalizability of the results.