Occurrence and Predictors of Postoperative Preauricular and Masticatory Muscle Pain Symptoms After Surgical Removal of Third Molars: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Dental Assistants Supporting the Mandible and the Restful Jaw Device.

BACKGROUND: During third molar removal, the mandible is supported by a dental assistant (DA) to counter downward forces during surgery, and with sedation, to maintain airway patency. The Restful Jaw device (PEP Design; Saint Paul) provides this support instead of the DA. PURPOSE: This study compared the occurrence of postoperative preauricular and masticatory muscle pain symptoms (PMMPS) between the device and DAs providing mandibular support, using two outcome measures. Secondary aims identify predictors of outcome and providers' opinions of the device. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE: In this multisite, single-blind, two-arm parallel randomized trial, participants without preoperative PMMPS had surgical removal of third molars, with sedation and bite blocks were randomly assigned to manual support or the device. EXPOSURE VARIABLE: The exposed group was randomly assigned to the device and the nonexposed group to manual support. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE(S): The primary outcome was patient-reported PMMPS. Two secondary outcomes were pain assessed with the temporomandibular disorder Pain Screener and providers' views on the device. Outcomes were assessed at 1-, 3-, and 6-month postsurgery. COVARIATES: The covariates are baseline demographics (eg, sex), clinical characteristics (eg, eruption status), and third molar surgeries. ANALYSES: For occurrence of pain, generalized estimating equations assessed differences between groups. Logistic regression analysis assessed predictors of pain at 1 month, per the Screener. The level for statistical significance was 5%. RESULTS: Enrollment was 86 and 83 participants in the device and DA groups, respectively. The average age was 20.8 years; the majority were female (65%) and Caucasian (66%). The retention rate was ≥95.9%. The groups did not differ significantly for occurrence of pain using the primary and secondary outcome measures at any follow-up (P ≥ .46). Fully impacted molars were associated with occurrence of pain (odds ratio = 3.44; 95% confidence interval 1.49-7.92; P = .004). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Occurrence of pain using the primary and secondary outcome measures did not differ significantly between groups at any follow-up and was associated with removal of fully impacted third molars. Four out of five surgeons reported wanting to use the device on a regular basis when performing this procedure in sedated patients.

Practitioner/Practice- and Patient-Based Factors Contributing to Dental Practitioner Treatment Recommendations for Patients with Pain-Related TMDs: Findings from the National Dental PBRN.

AIMS: To document National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN) practitioner treatment recommendations for patients with painful temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and to identify practitioner/practice- and patient-related factors contributing to treatment recommendations made at the initial clinical visit. METHODS: This prospective single-sample cohort study formed groups based on treatment recommendations made by 185 dental practitioners who treated 1,901 patients with painful TMDs. At the baseline visit, which this article describes, practitioners provided patients with their diagnoses and a treatment plan and then completed a comprehensive questionnaire. RESULTS: Self-care, an intraoral appliance, medication, and practitioner-recommended jaw exercises were the most frequently recommended treatments. Practitioners recommended multiple treatments to most patients. TMD signs, symptoms, and diagnoses were primary considerations in treatment planning, but the practitioner's expectations for improvement were only significant for intraoral appliances and self-care. Female practitioners and those with expertise in TMDs more frequently recommended patient-directed and multidisciplinary treatments compared to their counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners used a wide range of treatments for patients with few consistent patterns. The propensity to use TMD signs, symptoms, and diagnoses when making treatment recommendations suggests a tendency to conceptualize patients using the biomedical model. Infrequent referral to nondental providers suggests a lack of availability of these providers, a misunderstanding of the complexity of TMDs, and/or discomfort with assessment of psychosocial factors. Implications include the need for comprehensive training in the assessment and management of TMD patients during dental school and participation in TMD continuing education courses following evidence-based guidelines.

A Controlled Study of Biopsychosocial Differences Observed in Masticatory Myalgia With and Without Pain Referral.

AIMS: To assess differences in biopsychosocial factors between participants with masticatory myofascial pain with referral (MFPwR), with myalgia without referral (Mw/oR), and community controls without TMDs. METHODS: Study participants were diagnosed with MFPwR (n = 196), Mw/oR (n = 299), or as a non-TMD community control (n = 87) by two calibrated examiners at each of three study sites. Pain chronicity, pain on palpation of masticatory muscle sites, and pressure pain thresholds (PPT) at 12 masticatory muscle, 2 trigeminal, and 2 nontrigeminal control sites were recorded. Psychosocial factors assessed included anxiety, depression, and nonspecific physical symptoms (Symptom Checklist-90 Revised); stress (Perceived Stress Scale); and health-related quality of life (Short Form Health Survey). Comparisons among the three groups were adjusted for age, sex, race, education, and income using multivariable linear regression. The significance threshold was set at P = .017 (.05 / 3) for subsequent pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: Compared to the Mw/oR group, the MFPwR group had significantly greater pain chronicity, number of painful muscle sites, anxiety, depression, nonspecific physical symptoms, and impaired physical health (P < .017). The MFPwR group also had significantly lower PPTs for masticatory sites (P < .017). Both muscle pain groups differed significantly from the non-TMD community control group for all outcome measures (P < .017). CONCLUSION: These findings support the clinical utility of separating MFPwR from Mw/oR. Patients with MFPwR are more complex from a biopsychosocial perspective than Mw/oR patients, which likely affects prognosis and supports consideration of these factors in case management.

Fear of Movement and Catastrophizing in Participants with Temporomandibular Disorders.

AIMS: To assess differences in catastrophizing and kinesiophobia in relation to areas of pain and somatic symptoms among participants with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and controls. METHODS: In total, 401 participants (333 women, 68 men, mean age: 45.8 years) in the TMJ Impact Project were examined in accordance with the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD, including clinical examination (Axis I) and psychosocial assessment (Axis II) augmented with imaging of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Of these, 218 participants had a painful TMD pain diagnosis, 63 had a nonpainful TMD diagnosis, and 111 had no TMD. Nine participants had missing data. Participants completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, Areas of Pain figure, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 for assessing somatic symptoms. RESULTS: Compared to controls, participants with TMD pain showed higher levels of catastrophizing (P = .017), kinesiophobia (P < .001), areas of pain (P < .001), and somatic symptoms (P < .001). Participants with nonpainful TMD showed a higher level of kinesiophobia (P < .001) than controls. There was a positive correlation between catastrophizing and kinesiophobia for participants with TMD pain (r = 0.33, P < .001) and nonpainful TMD (r = 0.42, P < .001). DISCUSSION: The results suggest more fear of movement, as well as an association between catastrophizing and fear of movement, in participants with TMD pain and in participants with nonpainful TMD compared to controls. Assessment and management of fear of movement as well as catastrophizing may be useful as part of individualized treatment strategies for patients with TMD.

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.

Acute and Chronic Temporomandibular Disorder Pain: A critical review of differentiating factors and predictors of acute to chronic pain transition.

AIMS: The aims of this critical review were to: (i) assess the factors that differentiate acute from chronic temporomandibular disorders (TMD) pain; (ii) assess the risk factors associated with the transition from acute to chronic TMD pain; and (iii) summarize and appraise the studies. METHOD: The databases used were MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Eligible studies included articles comparing acute to chronic TMD pain, and cohort studies assessing the risk factors implicated in the transition from acute to chronic TMD pain. RESULTS: Seven articles were selected: one case-control study, three cross-sectional studies, and three cohort studies. These studies found that psychological factors were more common in chronic than acute TMD pain patients; however, these factors did not increase the transition risk in the multivariable model. Myofascial and baseline pain intensity were associated with the transition from acute to chronic TMD pain at a 6-month follow-up. Due to methodological weaknesses in the available literature, more research is required to establish the risk factors implicated in the transition from acute to chronic TMD pain. CONCLUSION: This review found some evidence that myofascial pain is associated with the transition risk from acute to chronic TMD pain at a 6-month follow-up and that pain intensity at baseline is associated with more intense TMD pain 6 months later. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the role of demographics and psychological disorders as independent risk factors.

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.

Diagnostic accuracy of panoramic radiography and MRI for detecting signs of TMJ degenerative joint disease.

The objective of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of panoramic radiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detection of signs of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) degenerative joint disease (DJD). Panoramic radiography and bilateral MRI and computed tomography (CT) of the TMJs were performed for 705 subjects. Three calibrated board-certified radiologists who were blinded to the clinical findings interpreted all images. The diagnoses of DJD established using the panoramic radiographs and MRIs were compared to the reference standard diagnoses derived from the CTs. DJD was defined as the presence of at least 1 of the following 4 signs: a subcortical cyst, surface erosion, osteophyte formation, or generalized sclerosis. The target values for sensitivity and specificity were 70% or greater and 95% or greater, respectively. Compared to the reference standard CTs, the panoramic radiographs had the following sensitivity and specificity values: subcortical cysts, 14% and 100%, respectively; erosion, 20% and 100%, respectively; osteophytes, 12% and 100%, respectively; and sclerosis, 33% and 100%, respectively. The MRIs achieved the following sensitivity and specificity values: subcortical cysts, 32% and 100% respectively; erosion, 35% and 99% respectively; osteophytes, 71% and 98%, respectively; and sclerosis, 50% and 100%, respectively. The radiologists' interexaminer reliability was slight (κ = 0.16) when using panoramic radiographs, moderate (κ = 0.47) when using MRIs, and substantial when using CTs (κ = 0.71) for diagnosis of signs of DJD. Panoramic radiographs and MRIs had below-target sensitivity but above-target specificity in detecting all CT-depicted signs of DJD with the exception of osteophytes, for which MRIs demonstrated adequate diagnostic accuracy. Use of CT for diagnosis of TMJ DJD is recommended to avoid the false-negative findings that can occur if panoramic radiographs and MRIs are used.

Effect of Shortened Dental Arch on Temporomandibular Joint Intra-articular Disorders.

AIMS: To investigate whether a shortened dental arch (SDA), as identified by reduced posterior occlusal contacts, is a risk factor for the progression of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) intra-articular disorders (ID), as identified using imaging techniques. METHODS: This multisite, prospective observational study with a mean follow-up period of 7.9 years had a sample of 345 participants with at least 1 temporomandibular disorder (TMD) diagnosis at baseline. SDA was defined as reduced occlusal posterior support due to lack of occlusal intercuspal contacts in the molar region on the left and/or right side. SDA was assessed at baseline and at follow-up with metalized Mylar Tape. The presence or absence of a TMJ ID and the specific TMJ ID diagnoses for baseline and follow-up images were established by a calibrated, blinded radiologist at each of three sites by using bilateral magnetic resonance imaging for soft tissue imaging for disc displacement and by bilateral multidetector computed tomography or cone beam computed tomography for hard tissue imaging for degenerative joint diseases. Wilcoxon rank sum test and linear regression analyses were used to test for an impact of SDA on TMJ ID status. RESULTS: At baseline, TMJ ID status of either side was not significantly affected by the presence of SDA on the ipsilateral or contralateral side of the jaw (all P > .05). Furthermore, the presence or absence of SDA at baseline was also not a significant predictor for progression of the TMJ ID status between baseline and follow-up (all P > .05). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that there is no significant effect of SDA on progression of TMJ ID.

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.

Critical Commentary 2: Reliability and Validity of the DC/TMD Axis I.

No abstract available.

Interaction Between Awake and Sleep Bruxism Is Associated with Increased Presence of Painful Temporomandibular Disorder.

AIMS: To explore whether awake and sleep bruxism interact in their associations with painful temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and whether the interaction is multiplicative or additive. METHODS: In this case-control study, all participants (n = 705) were part of the multicenter Validation Project and were recruited as a convenience sample of community cases and controls and clinic cases. Logistic regression analyses were applied to test for the association between self-reported bruxism (sleep and/or awake) and the presence of painful TMD, and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were computed. Regression models included an interaction term to test for multiplicative interaction, and additive interaction was calculated as the relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI). RESULTS: Based on logistic regression analyses adjusted for age and gender, the main effects for both awake (OR = 6.7; 95% CI: 3.4 to 12.9) and sleep (OR = 5.1; 95% CI: 3.1 to 8.3) bruxism were significant. While the multiplicative interaction (OR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.4) was not significant, the results indicated a significant positive additive interaction (RERI = 8.6; 95% CI: 1.0 to 19.7) on the OR scale. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that awake and sleep bruxism are associated with an increased presence of painful TMD, and that both types of bruxism are not independently associated, but interact additively. As such, the presence of each factor amplifies the effect of the other.

Dentist Practice Patterns and Therapeutic Confidence in the Treatment of Pain Related to Temporomandibular Disorders in a Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

AIMS: To quantify the practice patterns of Japanese dentists in the management of pain related to temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and to identify specific characteristics that are significantly associated with the decision to perform occlusal adjustment for TMD-related pain. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted consisting of a questionnaire survey of dentists affiliated with the Dental Practice-Based Research Network Japan (JDPBRN) (n = 148). Participants were asked how they diagnosed and treated TMD-related pain. Associations between dentist characteristics and the decision to perform occlusal adjustment were analyzed via multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 113 clinicians responded to the questionnaire (76% response rate), and 81% of them (n = 89) had treated TMD during the previous year. Dentists treated an average of 1.9 ± 1.8 (mean ± SD) patients with TMD-related pain per month. Most JDPBRN dentists used similar diagnostic protocols, including questions and examinations. The most frequent treatments were splints or mouthguards (96.5%), medications (84.7%), and self-care (69.4%). Occlusal adjustment for TMD-related pain was performed by 58% of the participants. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified two factors significantly associated with the decision to perform occlusal adjustment: dentist lack of confidence in curing TMD-related acute pain (odds ratio [OR] 5.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.260 to 24.861) and proportion of patients with severe TMD-related pain (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.909 to 0.999). CONCLUSION: The most common treatments for TMD-related pain were reversible treatments; however, over half of the dentists performed occlusal adjustment for TMD-related pain. The results of this study suggest that an evidence-practice gap exists for occlusal adjustment for TMD-related pain.

Sleep quality in temporomandibular disorder cases.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize self-reported sleep quality (SQ) in cases with temporomandibular disorder (TMD) and to compare their results with those of healthy controls. METHODS: The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was used to measure SQ in a convenience sample of 609 TMD cases and 88 controls. The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic nomenclature was used, but Axis I diagnoses were based on the consensus of two reliable criterion examiners and not the RDC/TMD algorithms. The PSQI scores for TMD cases were calculated also for the RDC/TMD Axis II measures assessing chronic pain and disability, depression, and nonspecific physical symptoms. PSQI scores of the TMD cases were compared with those from controls. RESULTS: TMD cases with one to five TMD diagnoses (n = 609) had a mean PSQI score of 7.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 6.7-7.4]. In comparison, the mean score was 5.2 (95% CI = 4.6-5.9) for control subjects. For the subset of TMD cases with pain-free diagnoses (n = 113), the PSQI score was similar to controls with 5.1 (95% CI = 4.5-5.6), whereas it was significantly different for cases with pain-related diagnoses 7.5 (95% CI = 6.6-8.3; n = 87). Although the number of TMD diagnoses and participant age had some influence on SQ, psychosocial status, and pain-related impairment assessed with RDC/TMD Axis II measures had the strongest association with SQ, in particular, dysfunctional chronic pain. CONCLUSION: SQ is impaired in TMD patients with pain-related diagnoses, and even more in those with dysfunctional pain. This relationship between sleep and pain suggests that SQ should be assessed in TMD pain patients, especially in those with significant Axis II involvement.

Executive summary of the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders for clinical and research applications.

BACKGROUND: In this executive summary, the authors describe a protocol for assessing patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD). It is based on the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) for clinical and research applications. METHODS: The DC/TMD was developed using published Axis I physical diagnoses for the most common TMDs. Axis I diagnostic criteria were derived from pertinent clinical TMD signs and symptoms. Axis II consists of psychosocial and behavioral questionnaires already in the public domain. A panel of experts vetted and modified the Axis I and Axis II diagnostic protocols. Recommended changes were assessed for diagnostic accuracy by using the Validation Project's data set, which formed the basis for the development of the DC/TMD. RESULTS: Axis I diagnostic criteria for TMD pain-related disorders have acceptable validity and provide definitive diagnoses for pain involving the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and masticatory muscles. Axis I diagnostic criteria for the most common TMJ intra-articular disorders are appropriate for screening purposes only. A definitive diagnosis for TMJ intra-articular disorders requires computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Axis II questionnaires provide valid assessment of psychosocial and behavioral factors that can affect management of TMD. CONCLUSIONS: The DC/TMD provides a questionnaire for the pain history in conjunction with validated clinical examination criteria for diagnosing the most common TMDs. In addition, it provides Axis II questionnaires for assessing psychosocial and behavioral factors that may contribute to the onset and perpetuation of the patient's TMD. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The DC/TMD is appropriate for use in clinical and research settings to allow for a comprehensive assessment of patients with TMD.

Temporomandibular Joint Disorders and Orofacial Pain.

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) affect 5% to 12% of the United States population. This article discusses common conditions related to temporomandibular joints, including disc displacements, inflammatory disturbances, loose joint bodies, traumatic disturbances, and developmental conditions. Also addressed are the appropriate imaging modalities and diagnostic criteria for TMD.

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.

Exploration of dimensionality and psychometric properties of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index in cases with temporomandibular disorders.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the dimensional structure of sleep quality with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and investigated its psychometric properties in cases with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). METHODS: A convenience sample of 609 TMD cases (age: 37.1 ± 13.1 yrs, 18-67 yrs, 85% female) of the multi-center Validation Project meeting Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) and with sufficient PSQI data were included in this study. To investigate PSQI scores' dimensionality, exploratory factor analysis was used. Factors were identified using the Scree plot. To investigate internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha was calculated. Analyses were separately performed for TMD cases with (N = 496) and TMD cases withouta pain-related diagnosis (N = 113). RESULTS: The mean PSQI score for all TMD cases was 7.1 ± 4.0 units, range: 0-19. The exploratory factor analysis identified one factor for cases with at least one pain-related TMD diagnosis as well as one factor for cases with a pain-free TMD diagnosis that explained 41% of the variance in cases with pain-related TMD and 37% in cases with pain-free TMD. Internal consistency for PSQI scores was alpha of 0.75 in cases with pain-related TMD, alpha of 0.66 in cases with pain-free TMD and alpha = 0.75 for all TMD cases. CONCLUSIONS: Sleep quality in TMD patients is a unidimensional construct and can therefore be represented by one summary score; a finding that is in line with previous reports in TMD patients.