AIMS: To test whether patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain differ from subjects from the general population with regard to their stress-related coping styles. METHODS: Consecutive adult TMD patients (n = 70) and adult subjects of a regional general population sample (n = 868), examined according to the German version of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD), were included in this study. The inclusion criterion for TMD patients was at least one pain-related diagnosis according to the RDC/ TMD, while general-population subjects were excluded if they had any pain-related TMD diagnosis. Coping styles were assessed using a common and well-accepted German 114-item stress-coping questionnaire ("Stressverarbeitungsfragebogen" SVF 114). The coping style-TMD pain relationship was investigated using logistic regression analyses adjusted for possible confounders (age, sex, level of education), as well as the influence of psychosocial measures (RDC/TMD Axis II). Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Study participants who used fewer adaptive coping styles (OR = 0.47, CI: 0.26-0.83) and more maladaptive coping styles (OR = 1.55, CI: 1.05-2.29) were at greater risk for TMD pain. After adjustment for sociodemographic confounders, the coping style-TMD pain relationship changed only slightly in magnitude. In an analysis adjusted for sociodemographic confounders and psychosocial RDC/TMD Axis II measures, adaptive coping styles were even more profoundly related to TMD pain (OR: 0.27, 95 CI: 0.09-0.83), but maladaptive coping styles were less related to TMD pain (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.51-2.72). CONCLUSION: Differences in the applied stress-related coping styles of TMD patients and subjects without TMD may have implications for clinical decision making and choosing among treatment alternatives.
AIMS: To test whether patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain differ from subjects from the general population with regard to their stress-related coping styles. METHODS: Consecutive adult TMDpatients (n = 70) and adult subjects of a regional general population sample (n = 868), examined according to the German version of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD), were included in this study. The inclusion criterion for TMDpatients was at least one pain-related diagnosis according to the RDC/ TMD, while general-population subjects were excluded if they had any pain-related TMD diagnosis. Coping styles were assessed using a common and well-accepted German 114-item stress-coping questionnaire ("Stressverarbeitungsfragebogen" SVF 114). The coping style-TMD pain relationship was investigated using logistic regression analyses adjusted for possible confounders (age, sex, level of education), as well as the influence of psychosocial measures (RDC/TMD Axis II). Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Study participants who used fewer adaptive coping styles (OR = 0.47, CI: 0.26-0.83) and more maladaptive coping styles (OR = 1.55, CI: 1.05-2.29) were at greater risk for TMD pain. After adjustment for sociodemographic confounders, the coping style-TMD pain relationship changed only slightly in magnitude. In an analysis adjusted for sociodemographic confounders and psychosocial RDC/TMD Axis II measures, adaptive coping styles were even more profoundly related to TMD pain (OR: 0.27, 95 CI: 0.09-0.83), but maladaptive coping styles were less related to TMD pain (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.51-2.72). CONCLUSION: Differences in the applied stress-related coping styles of TMDpatients and subjects without TMD may have implications for clinical decision making and choosing among treatment alternatives.
Authors: Daniel R Reissmann; Alexandra Behn; Oliver Schierz; Thomas List; Guido Heydecke Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Eliane H Dutra; Mara H O' Brien; Alexandro Lima; Zana Kalajzic; Aditya Tadinada; Ravindra Nanda; Sumit Yadav Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Xabier Ander Soto-Goñi; Francisco Alen; Leticia Buiza-González; Danielle Marcolino-Cruz; Teresa Sánchez-Sánchez; Ignacio Ardizone-García; Fernando Aneiros-López; Laura Jiménez-Ortega Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 4.003