Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 selfreport 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response by Richard Ohrback, Edmond Truelove, and Eric Schiffman concerning two letters to the editor about their article on the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorder Validation Project which was published in a previous issue is presented

Epidemiological investigations about the prevalence of TMJ ID and osteoarthritis have largely reported the symptoms and signs associated with these disorders without specific criteria to establish the diagnosis. In this study, specific diagnostic criteria have been developed, using historical, clinical and tomographic items that are predictive of the presence and stage of TMJ internal derangement. The diagnostic criteria were compared to arthrotomography to assess their diagnostic accuracy. Overall, the percent agreement was 75%. The predictability of specific stages of TMJ ID varied. Overall, sensitivity and specificity of the criteria were acceptable. The diagnosis of osteoarthritis was predicted only with tomography. Utilization of these diagnostic criteria in epidemiological studies is valid due to their high overall predictiveness when applied to a large population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Executive Summary of the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders for Clinical and Research Applications" which appeared in the 2016 issue, along with the authors' response.

A letter to the editor and a reply in response to the article "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" are presented.