Search

ABSTRACT Background Objective Methods Results Conclusion Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are a highly misreported health problem. Its diagnosis is complex and requires the use of valid and reliable instruments.To develop and validate the Epidemiological Diagnostic Instrument for TMD (EDI/TMD).Content validity (CV), response process (RP), construct validity (EFA), reliability (inter and intraobserver consistency), and convergence validity of the EDI/TMD were assessed and compared to the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD).An instrument composed of a 9‐question questionnaire and a 12‐step clinical protocol was developed. CV analysis reduced the instrument to a 5‐question and 7‐step clinical protocol (CVI = 0.93). Some instructions were included after the RP. The EFA found three factors: myogenous TMD, arthrogenous TMD, and differential diagnosis. The reliability scores ranged from substantial to excellent. When compared to the DC/TMD, the EDI/TMD total score indicated that this instrument is valid and provides satisfactory diagnostic criteria (Kappa = 0.906; p < 0.001), and can distinguish non‐TMD and TMD individuals, with a cut‐off point of 4.9 (Sensitivity = 1.0; Specificity = 1.0; AUC = 1.0). For individuals who had both myogenous and arthrogenous TMD, the cut‐off point was 14 or higher (Sensitivity = 0.8; Specificity = 1.0; AUC = 0.987). For individuals who had either myogenous TMD (Sensitivity = 1.0; Specificity = 0.88; PPV = 0.89; NPV = 1.0) or arthrogenous TMD (Sensitivity = 0.95; Specificity = 0.87; PPV = 0.83; NPV = 0.96), the cut‐off point was between 5 and 13.9, with the highest EFA score being the determinant factor for final diagnosis.Based on its psychometric properties, the EDI/TMD is a valid and reliable assessment tool that is capable of diagnosing TMD and classifying its subtypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate reliable and validated temporomandibular disorder (TMD) diagnostic instruments for use as diagnostic tools in epidemiological surveys. Methods: Two independent reviewers performed searches in the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to identify validation studies of diagnostic and screening instruments for TMD published up to March 2021. Results: Sixteen studies were included for the systematic review. Different TMD instruments were evaluated, such as FAI, RDC/TMD, DC/TMD, Helkimo Index, and AAOP Questionnaire. The instruments differed according to the number of items. Some questionnaires appear to be effective for the initial screening of TMD patients and can be incorporated in clinical practice and epidemiological studies since they are easy and fast to apply. Conclusion: To provide an accurate TMD diagnosis, it is important to use instruments that involve a clinical examination. Authors suggest the development of a new validated diagnostic tool for use in epidemiological surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective:  To evaluate reliable and validated temporomandibular disorder (TMD) diagnostic instruments for use as diagnostic tools in epidemiological surveys. Methods: Two independent reviewers performed searches in the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to identify validation studies of diagnostic and screening instruments for TMD published up to March 2021. Results: Sixteen studies were included for the systematic review. Different TMD instruments were evaluated, such as FAI, RDC/TMD, DC/TMD, Helkimo Index, and AAOP Questionnaire. The instruments differed according to the number of items. Some questionnaires appear to be effective for the initial screening of TMD patients and can be incorporated in clinical practice and epidemiological studies since they are easy and fast to apply. Conclusion: To provide an accurate TMD diagnosis, it is important to use instruments that involve a clinical examination. Authors suggest the development of a new validated diagnostic tool for use in epidemiological surveys.