Literature DB >> 24482784

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†.

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.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24482784      PMCID: PMC4478082          DOI: 10.11607/jop.1151

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oral Facial Pain Headache


  109 in total

1.  IMMPACT recommendations for clinical trials: opportunities for the RDC/TMD.

Authors:  J A Haythornthwaite
Journal:  J Oral Rehabil       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.837

2.  Clinical diagnostic criteria for TMD. New classification permits multiple diagnoses.

Authors:  E L Truelove; E E Sommers; L LeResche; S F Dworkin; M Von Korff
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 3.634

3.  The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. I: overview and methodology for assessment of validity.

Authors:  Eric L Schiffman; Edmond L Truelove; Richard Ohrbach; Gary C Anderson; Mike T John; Thomas List; John O Look
Journal:  J Orofac Pain       Date:  2010

4.  The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.

Authors:  K Kroenke; R L Spitzer; J B Williams
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Validation and standardization of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) in the general population.

Authors:  Bernd Löwe; Oliver Decker; Stefanie Müller; Elmar Brähler; Dieter Schellberg; Wolfgang Herzog; Philipp Yorck Herzberg
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Diagnostic value of orthopedic tests in patients with temporomandibular disorders.

Authors:  A M Lobbezoo-Scholte; M H Steenks; J A Faber; F Bosman
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 6.116

7.  The value of the provocation response in lumbar zygapophyseal joint injections.

Authors:  A C Schwarzer; R Derby; C N Aprill; J Fortin; G Kine; N Bogduk
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 3.442

Review 8.  Occlusion, Orthodontic treatment, and temporomandibular disorders: a review.

Authors:  J A McNamara; D A Seligman; J P Okeson
Journal:  J Orofac Pain       Date:  1995

9.  Clinical orofacial characteristics associated with risk of first-onset TMD: the OPPERA prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Richard Ohrbach; Eric Bair; Roger B Fillingim; Yoly Gonzalez; Sharon M Gordon; Pei-Feng Lim; Margarete Ribeiro-Dasilva; Luda Diatchenko; Ronald Dubner; Joel D Greenspan; Charles Knott; William Maixner; Shad B Smith; Gary D Slade
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 5.820

10.  Psychological factors associated with development of TMD: the OPPERA prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Roger B Fillingim; Richard Ohrbach; Joel D Greenspan; Charles Knott; Luda Diatchenko; Ronald Dubner; Eric Bair; Cristina Baraian; Nicole Mack; Gary D Slade; William Maixner
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 5.820

View more
  556 in total

Review 1.  Temporomandibular joint diagnostics using CBCT.

Authors:  T A Larheim; A-K Abrahamsson; M Kristensen; L Z Arvidsson
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.419

2.  [The correct terminology for jaw muscle pain].

Authors:  J C Türp
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.107

3.  Comparison of a 32-channel head coil and a 2-channel surface coil for MR imaging of the temporomandibular joint at 3.0 T.

Authors:  Andrei Manoliu; Georg Spinner; Michael Wyss; Lukas Filli; Stefan Erni; Dominik A Ettlin; Erika J Ulbrich; Felix P Kuhn; Luigi M Gallo; Gustav Andreisek
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 2.419

4.  Dental Angle class asymmetry and temporomandibular disorders.

Authors:  Daniele Manfredini; Luca Lombardo; Giuseppe Siciliani
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2017-01-13       Impact factor: 1.938

5.  The IL-1Ra gene variable number tandem repeat variant is associated with susceptibility to temporomandibular disorders in Turkish population.

Authors:  Mehmet Kemal Tumer; Ayse Feyda Nursal; Akin Tekcan; Kaan Yerliyurt; Anastasia Geyko; Serbulent Yigit
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 2.352

6.  Perceived helpfulness of treatments for myofascial TMD as a function of comorbid widespread pain.

Authors:  Vivian Santiago; Karen G Raphael
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2019-01-08       Impact factor: 3.573

7.  Counterclockwise maxillomandibular advancement surgery and disc repositioning: can condylar remodeling in the long-term follow-up be predicted?

Authors:  L R Gomes; L H Cevidanes; M R Gomes; A C Ruellas; D P Ryan; B Paniagua; L M Wolford; J R Gonçalves
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 2.789

8.  Is There an Association Between Temporomandibular Joint Effusion and Arthralgia?

Authors:  Shehryar N Khawaja; Heidi Crow; Ruba F G Mahmoud; Krishnan Kartha; Yoly Gonzalez
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 1.895

9.  Oral splints for patients with temporomandibular disorders or bruxism: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

Authors:  Philip Riley; Anne-Marie Glenny; Helen V Worthington; Elisabet Jacobsen; Clare Robertson; Justin Durham; Stephen Davies; Helen Petersen; Dwayne Boyers
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 4.014

10.  Trabecular structural changes in the mandibular condyle caused by degenerative osteoarthritis: a comparative study by cone-beam computed tomography imaging.

Authors:  Saadettin Kayipmaz; Saliha Akçay; Ömer Said Sezgin; Celal Çandirli
Journal:  Oral Radiol       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 1.852

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.