AIMS: To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) clinical examination and of the dynamic/static tests for the recognition of TMD pain. Since the diagnosis of TMD pain is especially complicated in persistent orofacial pain patients, the test outcomes in persistent TMD pain patients were contrasted to those in two control groups: a group of persistent dental pain patients and a group of pain-free subjects. METHODS: In 125 persistent TMD pain patients, 88 persistent dental pain patients, and 121 pain-free subjects, a blind and standardized clinical examination was performed. RESULTS: For the RDC/TMD, sensitivity (88%) was high and specificity was low (pain-free group: 71%; dental pain group: 45%). For the dynamic/static tests, sensitivity was 65% and specificities were 91% and 84%, respectively. Comparing the outcomes of the two examinations showed higher positive likelihood ratios for dynamic/static tests (P < .001), and lower negative likelihood ratios for the RDC/TMD examination (P < .01). CONCLUSION: For the confirmation of a suspicion of TMD pain, it is better to rely on positive dynamic/static tests. To confirm the absence of TMD pain, it is better to rely on a negative RDC/TMD examination.
AIMS: To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) clinical examination and of the dynamic/static tests for the recognition of TMD pain. Since the diagnosis of TMD pain is especially complicated in persistent orofacial painpatients, the test outcomes in persistent TMD painpatients were contrasted to those in two control groups: a group of persistent dental painpatients and a group of pain-free subjects. METHODS: In 125 persistent TMD painpatients, 88 persistent dental painpatients, and 121 pain-free subjects, a blind and standardized clinical examination was performed. RESULTS: For the RDC/TMD, sensitivity (88%) was high and specificity was low (pain-free group: 71%; dental pain group: 45%). For the dynamic/static tests, sensitivity was 65% and specificities were 91% and 84%, respectively. Comparing the outcomes of the two examinations showed higher positive likelihood ratios for dynamic/static tests (P < .001), and lower negative likelihood ratios for the RDC/TMD examination (P < .01). CONCLUSION: For the confirmation of a suspicion of TMD pain, it is better to rely on positive dynamic/static tests. To confirm the absence of TMD pain, it is better to rely on a negative RDC/TMD examination.
Authors: Jacques van der Zaag; Machiel Naeije; Darrel J Wicks; Hans L Hamburger; Frank Lobbezoo Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Eric Schiffman; Richard Ohrbach; Edmond Truelove; John Look; Gary Anderson; Jean-Paul Goulet; Thomas List; Peter Svensson; Yoly Gonzalez; Frank Lobbezoo; Ambra Michelotti; Sharon L Brooks; Werner Ceusters; Mark Drangsholt; Dominik Ettlin; Charly Gaul; Louis J Goldberg; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Lars Hollender; Rigmor Jensen; Mike T John; Antoon De Laat; Reny de Leeuw; William Maixner; Marylee van der Meulen; Greg M Murray; Donald R Nixdorf; Sandro Palla; Arne Petersson; Paul Pionchon; Barry Smith; Corine M Visscher; Joanna Zakrzewska; Samuel F Dworkin Journal: J Oral Facial Pain Headache Date: 2014
Authors: C C Peck; J-P Goulet; F Lobbezoo; E L Schiffman; P Alstergren; G C Anderson; R de Leeuw; R Jensen; A Michelotti; R Ohrbach; A Petersson; T List Journal: J Oral Rehabil Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.837