Management of painful temporomandibular disorders: Methods and overview of The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients often seek consultation with dentists for temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). The objectives of this article were to describe the methods of a large prospective cohort study of painful TMD management, practitioners' and patients' characteristics, and practitioners' initial treatment recommendations conducted by The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (the "network"). METHODS: Participating dentists recruited into this study treated patients seeking treatment for painful TMDs. The authors developed self-report instruments based on well-accepted instruments. The authors collected demographics, biopsychosocial characteristics, TMD symptoms, diagnoses, treatments, treatment adherence, and painful TMDs and jaw function outcomes through 6 months. RESULTS: Participating dentists were predominately White (76.8%) and male (62.2%), had a mean age of 52 years, and were general practitioners (73.5%) with 23.8% having completed an orofacial pain residency. Of the 1,901 patients with painful TMDs recruited, the predominant demographics were White (84.3%) and female (83.3%). Patients' mean age was 44 years, 88.8% self-reported good to excellent health, and 85.9% had education beyond high school. Eighty-two percent had pain or stiffness of the jaw on awakening, and 40.3% had low-intensity pain. The most frequent diagnoses were myalgia (72.4%) and headache attributed to TMDs (51.0%). Self-care instruction (89.4%), intraoral appliances (75.4%), and medications (57.6%) were recommended frequently. CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics of this TMD cohort include those typical of US patients with painful TMDs. Network practitioners typically managed TMDs using conservative treatments. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This study provides credible data regarding painful TMDs and TMD management provided by network practitioners across the United States. Knowledge acquired of treatment recommendations and patient reports may support future research and improve dental school curricula.

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.

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.

Large-scale clinical endodontic research in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network: study overview and methods.

INTRODUCTION: This article reports on the feasibility of conducting a large-scale endodontic prospective cohort study in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. This study was designed to measure pain and burden associated with initial orthograde root canal therapy (RCT) and to explore potential prognostic factors for pain outcomes. The main objectives of this first report in a series are to describe the project's feasibility and methods and the demographics of the sample obtained. METHODS: Sixty-two dentist practitioner-investigators (ie, 46 generalists and 16 endodontists) in 5 geographic areas were certified within the network and trained regarding the standardized study protocol. Enrollment and baseline data collection occurred over 6 months with postobturation follow-up for another 6 months. Patients and dentists completed questionnaires before and immediately after treatment visits. Patients also completed questionnaires at 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months after obturation. RESULTS: Enrollment exceeded target expectations, with 708 eligible patient-participants. Questionnaire return rates were good, ranging between 90% and 100%. Patient demographics were typical of persons who receive RCT in the United States (ie, mean age = 48 years [standard deviation = 13 years], with most being female [59%], college educated [81%], white non-Hispanic [86%], and having dental insurance [81%]). The tooth types being treated were also typical (ie, 61% molars, 28% premolars, and 11% anteriors, with maxillary teeth being predominant [59%]). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the feasibility of conducting large-scale endodontic prospective cohort studies in the network. Patients were rapidly recruited with high levels of compliance in data collection.

Diagnostic criteria for headache attributed to temporomandibular disorders.

AIMS: We assessed and compared the diagnostic accuracy of two sets of diagnostic criteria for headache secondary to temporomandibular disorders (TMD). METHODS: In 373 headache subjects with TMD, a TMD headache reference standard was defined as: self-reported temple headache, consensus diagnosis of painful TMD and replication of the temple headache using TMD-based provocation tests. Revised diagnostic criteria for Headache attributed to TMD were selected using the RPART (recursive partitioning and regression trees) procedure, and refined in half of the data set. Using the remaining half of the data, the diagnostic accuracy of the revised criteria was compared to that of the International Headache Society's International Classification of Headache Diseases (ICHD)-II criteria A to C for Headache or facial pain attributed to temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorder. RESULTS: Relative to the TMD headache reference standard, ICHD-II criteria showed sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 33%. The revised criteria for Headache attributed to TMD had sensitivity of 89% with improved specificity of 87% (p < 0.001). These criteria are (1) temple area headache that is changed with jaw movement, function or parafunction and (2) provocation of that headache by temporalis muscle palpation or jaw movement. CONCLUSION: Having significantly better specificity than the ICHD-II criteria A to C, the revised criteria are recommended to diagnose headache secondary to TMD.

The effect of catastrophizing and depression on chronic pain--a prospective cohort study of temporomandibular muscle and joint pain disorders.

Although most cases of temporomandibular muscle and joint disorders (TMJD) are mild and self-limiting, about 10% of TMJD patients develop severe disorders associated with chronic pain and disability. It has been suggested that depression and catastrophizing contributes to TMJD chronicity. This article assesses the effects of catastrophizing and depression on clinically significant TMJD pain (Graded Chronic Pain Scale [GCPS] II-IV). Four hundred eighty participants, recruited from the Minneapolis/St. Paul area through media advertisements and local dentists, received examinations and completed the GCPS at baseline and at 18-month follow-up. In a multivariable analysis including gender, age, and worst pain intensity, baseline catastrophizing (ß 3.79, P<0.0001) and pain intensity at baseline (ß 0.39, P<0.0001) were positively associated with characteristic of pain intensity at the 18th month. Disability at the 18-month follow-up was positively related to catastrophizing (ß 0.38, P<0.0001) and depression (ß 0.17, P=0.02). In addition, in the multivariable analysis adjusted by the same covariates previously described, the onset of clinically significant pain (GCPS II-IV) at the 18-month follow-up was associated with catastrophizing (odds ratio [OR] 1.72, P=0.02). Progression of clinically significant pain was related to catastrophizing (OR 2.16, P<0.0001) and widespread pain at baseline (OR 1.78, P=0.048). Results indicate that catastrophizing and depression contribute to the progression of chronic TMJD pain and disability, and therefore should be considered as important factors when evaluating and developing treatment plans for patients with TMJD.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating intraoral orthopedic appliances for temporomandibular disorders.

AIMS: To conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have assessed the efficacy of intraoral orthopedic appliances to reduce pain in patients with temporomandibular disorders affecting muscle and joint (TMJD) compared to subjects receiving placebo control, no treatment, or other treatments. METHODS: A search strategy of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane CENTRAL Register, and manual search identified all English language publications of RCTs for intraoral appliance treatment of TMJD pain during the years of January 1966 to March 2006. Two additional studies from 2006 were added during the review process. Selection criteria included RCTs assessing the efficacy of hard and soft stabilization appliances, anterior positioning appliances, anterior bite appliances, and other appliance types for TMJD pain. Pain relief outcome measures were used in the meta-analyses, and the QUORUM criteria for data abstraction were used. A quality analysis of the methods of each RCT was conducted using the CONSORT criteria. The review findings were expressed both as a qualitative review and, where possible, as a mathematical synthesis using meta-analysis of results. RESULTS: A total of 47 publications citing 44 RCTs with 2,218 subjects were included. Ten RCTs were included in two meta-analyses. In the first meta-analysis of seven studies with 385 patients, a hard stabilization appliance was found to improve TMJD pain compared to non-occluding appliance. The overall odds ratio (OR) of 2.46 was statistically significant (P = .001), with a 95% confidence interval of 1.56 to 3.67. In the second meta-analysis of three studies including 216 patients, a hard stabilization appliance was found to improve TMJD pain compared to no-treatment controls. The overall OR of 2.15 was positive but not statistically significant, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.80 to 5.75. The quality (0 to 1) of the studies was moderate, with a mean of 55% of quality criteria being met, suggesting some susceptibility to systematic bias may have existed. CONCLUSION: Hard stabilization appliances, when adjusted properly, have good evidence of modest efficacy in the treatment of TMJD pain compared to non-occluding appliances and no treatment. Other types of appliances, including soft stabilization appliances, anterior positioning appliances, and anterior bite appliances, have some RCT evidence of efficacy in reducing TMJD pain. However, the potential for adverse events with these appliances is higher and suggests the need for close monitoring in their use.

The effect of fibromyalgia and widespread pain on the clinically significant temporomandibular muscle and joint pain disorders--a prospective 18-month cohort study.

UNLABELLED: Although most cases of temporomandibular muscle and joint disorders (TMJD) are mild and self-limiting, about 10% of TMJD patients develop severe disorders associated with chronic pain and disability. It has been suggested that fibromyalgia and widespread pain play a significant role in TMJD chronicity. This paper assessed the effects of fibromyalgia and widespread pain on clinically significant TMJD pain (GCPS II-IV). Four hundred eighty-five participants recruited from the Minneapolis/St. Paul area through media advertisements and local dentists received examinations and completed the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) at baseline and at 18 months. Baseline widespread pain (OR: 2.53, P = .04) and depression (OR: 5.30, P = .005) were associated with onset of clinically significant pain (GCPS II-IV) within 18 months after baseline. The risk associated with baseline fibromyalgia was moderate, but not significant (OR: 2.74, P = .09). Persistence of clinically significant pain was related to fibromyalgia (OR: 2.48, P = .02) and depression (OR: 2.48, P = .02). These results indicate that these centrally generated pain conditions play a role in the onset and persistence of clinically significant TMJD. PERSPECTIVE: Fibromyalgia and widespread pain should receive important consideration when evaluating and developing a treatment plan for patients with TMJD.

Critical appraisal of methods used in randomized controlled trials of treatments for temporomandibular disorders.

AIMS: To evaluate the quality of methods used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments for management of pain and dysfunction associated with temporomandibular muscle and joint disorders (TMJD) and to discuss the implications for future RCTs. METHODS: A systematic review was made of RCTs that were implemented from 1966 through March 2006, to evaluate six types of treatments for TMJD: orthopedic appliances, occlusal therapy, physical medicine modalities, pharmacologic therapy, cognitive-behavioral and psychological therapy, and temporomandibular joint surgery. A quality assessment of 210 published RCTs assessing the internal and external validity of these RCTs was conducted using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria adapted to the methods of the studies. RESULTS: Independent assessments by raters demonstrated consistency with a mean intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.63 (95% confidence interval). The mean percent of criteria met was 58%, with only 10% of the RCTs meeting the four most important criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the evidence base for TMJD treatments may be susceptible to systematic bias and most past studies should be interpreted with caution. However, a scatter plot of RCT quality versus year of publication shows improvement in RCT quality over time, suggesting that future studies may continue to improve methods that minimize bias.

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.

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.

Electric toothbrush application is a reliable and valid test for differentiating temporomandibular disorders pain patients from controls.

BACKGROUND: Current methods for identifying patients with pain hypersensitivity are sufficiently complex to limit their widespread application in clinical settings. We assessed the reliability and validity of a simple multi-modal vibrotactile stimulus, applied using an electric toothbrush, to evaluate its potential as a screening tool for central sensitization. METHODS: Fourteen female temporomandibular disorders (TMD) subjects with myofascial pain (RDC/TMD Ia or Ib) and arthralgia (RDC/TMD IIIa) were compared to 13 pain-free controls of matched age and gender. Vibrotactile stimulus was performed with an electric toothbrush, applied with 1 pound pressure for 30 seconds in four locations: over the lateral pole of the temporomandibular joint, masseter, temporalis, and mid-ventral surface of forearm. Pain intensity (0-10) was recorded following the stimulus at 0, 15, 30, and 60 seconds. Test-retest reliability was assessed with measurements from 8 participants, taken 2-12 hours apart. Case versus control differentiation involved comparison of area under the curve (AUC). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine cutoff AUC scores for maximum sensitivity and specificity for this multi-modal vibrotactile stimulus. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability resulted in an ICC of 0.87 for all 4 pooled sites. ROC-determined AUC cutoff scores resulted in a sensitivity of 57% and specificity of 92% for all 4 pooled sites. CONCLUSION: The electric toothbrush stimulus had excellent test-retest reliability. Validity of the scores was demonstrated with modest sensitivity and good specificity for differentiating TMD pain patients from controls, which are acceptable properties for a screening test.

A quantitative evaluation of inflammatory cells in human temporomandibular joint tissues from patients with and without implants.

PURPOSE: Previous studies made only qualitative assessments of immune cell responses to temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implant wear debris. The aim of this study was to perform a quantitative comparison of inflammatory cell types in TMJ tissues with implant wear debris, TMJ tissues with a history of disc pathology without implant debris, and TMJ tissues from normal control subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: TMJ tissues were collected from the following 3 groups of subjects: 1) individuals with failed TMJ implants (implant group, n = 10), 2) patients with TMJ disc pathology but no history of implant placement (nonimplant surgery group, n = 10), and normal cadaveric tissues with no history of surgery (control group, n = 10). Tissue sections (5 microm) from all subjects were stained with hematoxylin-eosin, after which cell counts were done for 2 types of inflammatory cells: multinucleated giant cells and lymphocytes. Mean inflammatory cell counts from the 3 groups were compared by use of a 1-way analysis of variance procedure and Bonferroni adjustment to maintain an overall type I error rate of .05. RESULTS: Implant group tissues contained significantly more inflammatory cells than tissues from the nonimplant surgery and control groups (P < .0001). Multinucleated giant cells were only present in implant group tissues. Although the high number of multinucleated giant cells present in the implant group obscured a total count of lymphocytes for that group, lymphocyte cell counts were still significantly greater (P < .005) in implant group tissues than in tissues from the other 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our data provide quantitative confirmation that the presence of Proplast-Teflon implant (Vitek, Houston, TX) wear debris is associated with a significant increase in the number of local multinucleated giant cells and lymphocytes.

A randomized clinical trial assessing the efficacy of adding 6 x 6 exercises to self-care for the treatment of masticatory myofascial pain.

AIMS: To determine whether Rocabado's 6 x 6 exercise program has an added benefit to self-care alone in reducing myofascial jaw pain and improving forward head posture (FHP) in subjects with myofascial pain and FHP at the end of 4 weeks. METHODS: In this double-blinded trial, 45 subjects (43 female and 2 male, mean age 24 years) were randomly assigned to self-care or self-care + 6 X 6 exercises. The primary outcome measure was intensity of jaw pain on a numerical graphic rating scale (NGRS). Secondary outcome measures were jaw pain on a verbal rating scale (VRS), neck pain (NGRS and VRS), and change in head posture. Twenty-one subjects per group resulted in 80% power to detect a difference of 2 in the NGRS for intensity of jaw pain. Alpha was set at .05 for statistical significance. RESULTS: Both groups showed significant statistical (P = .001) and clinical (> 2 on NGRS) improvement in jaw pain intensity. Jaw pain and neck pain improved significantly (P < .01) in both groups. There were no differences between groups for any of the measures. A significant change in head posture was not detected in either group. CONCLUSION: The 6 x 6 exercises were not significantly more beneficial in reducing the intensity of jaw and neck pain than self-care alone. Furthermore, they were not beneficial in improving head posture within the 4-week duration of this study.

Reliability and validity of a new fingertip-shaped pressure algometer for assessing pressure pain thresholds in the temporomandibular joint and masticatory muscles.

AIMS: To test in vitro and in vivo the reliability and accuracy of a new algometer, the pressure algometer for palpation (PAP), for measuring pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) and to compare its features with those of a commercially available pressure algometer. METHODS: For in vitro accuracy testing, 6 repeated measurements were made at 8 defined test weights from 0.5 to 5 lb. In vivo validity testing compared the PAP to a standard instrument, the hand-held Somedic algometer, at 16 sites including the masticatory muscles, the temporomandibular joints, and the frontalis (as the control site) in 15 temporomandibular disorder (TMD) cases and 15 controls. Intraexaminer reliability was also assessed for both algometers. RESULTS: In vitro reliability was high, with coefficients of variation of < 5% and a single-measurement standard deviation of 2.1 kPa. Accuracy was also high, with PAP measurements correlating with test weights at r = .99 (P < .001). Repeated measures reliability in vivo was high, with intraclass correlation estimates of 0.73 to 0.96 for the PAP and 0.78 to 0.99 for the Somedic algometer. PPT values correlated moderately between the 2 devices (r ranged from 0.38 to 0.66; P < or = .05) and were consistently higher for the PAP at all sites (P < .001). Differences between controls and TMD cases were also significant for both algometers (P < .006). CONCLUSION: Both the PAP and the Somedic algometer showed high reliability. Concurrent validity was demonstrated by statistically significant correlations between the devices. Both showed equally high capacity for differentiating TMD cases from controls. The PAP yielded significantly higher PPTs than the Somedic algometer.

The influence of dynamic occlusal interferences on probing depth and attachment level: results of the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP).

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate potential associations between dynamic occlusal interferences and signs of periodontal disease in posterior teeth based on dental and medical measurements obtained from a population-based sample in the cross-sectional epidemiological study entitled, "Study of Health in Pomerania" (SHIP). METHODS: Medical history and dental and sociodemographic parameters of 2,980 representatively selected dentate subjects, 20 to 79 years of age, were collected. The analysis was performed on posterior teeth only using a mixed linear model that considers the clustered structure of the data. The model also was adjusted with respect to known risk factors for periodontal disease. RESULTS: The presence of non-working side contacts only was significantly related to probing depth (P<0.0001) and attachment loss (P=0.001). The presence of non-working side contacts and working side contacts on the same tooth was significantly related to increased probing depth (P=0.004) but not attachment level. The effect magnitude was a mean increase of 0.13 mm for probing depth and 0.14 mm in attachment loss. Known risk factors for periodontal disease that also showed significant associations with probing depth and attachment loss included male gender, age, smoking, education, and plaque score. Other factors significantly related to probing depth and/or attachment loss were tilted teeth, restored occlusal surfaces versus sound surfaces, elongated teeth, and tooth type (molar versus premolar). CONCLUSION: The effect of non-working contacts on periodontal disease status was discernible, but weak in terms of magnitude and specificity.