Yasmine Mendes Pupo1, Leticia Lopes Quirino Pantoja2, Flavia Fusco Veiga2, José Stechman-Neto3, Liete Figueiredo Zwir4, Paulo Vitor Farago5, Graziela De Luca Canto6, André Luís Porporatti7. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. 2. Brazilian Centre for Evidence Based Research, Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil. 3. Department of Dentistry and Post Graduate Program Communication Disorders - Tuiuti University of Parana, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Federal University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, State University of Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil. 6. School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 7. Brazilian Centre for Evidence Based Research, Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil. Electronic address: andreporporatti@yahoo.com.br.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic validity of clinical examination protocols compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in adults with temporomandibular joint disk displacement disorders. STUDY DESIGN: According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review was undertaken using a selection process in 2 phases; 283 different references were identified, and 10 articles were included for qualitative analysis and 7 for meta-analysis. Temporomandibular joint disorders were assessed through clinical diagnosis protocols with the aid of Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders, Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders, or Clinical Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. The authors searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane, LILACS, PubMed, Science Direct, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. Additional search of gray literature was performed. Selected studies were evaluated by using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Two subgroups were analyzed: Disk displacement with reduction (DDwR) and disk displacement without reduction (DDwoR). RESULTS: The validity of clinical protocols compared with MRI performed in studies evaluating only DDwR presented sensitivity of 44% (39%-49%) and specificity 51% (46%-57%). In studies evaluating only DDwoR, sensitivity was 22% (16%-30%) and specificity 93% (85%-98%). The area under the curve value for validity of clinical protocols in all studies was 0.63, 0.56 for studies evaluating DDwR and 0.64 for studies evaluating DDwoR. Area under the curve values were considered poor. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical examination protocols have poor validity to diagnose DDwR and DDwoR compared with MRI. MRI should be used to increase the diagnostic accuracy when the information provided can influence clinical decisions.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic validity of clinical examination protocols compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in adults with temporomandibular joint disk displacement disorders. STUDY DESIGN: According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review was undertaken using a selection process in 2 phases; 283 different references were identified, and 10 articles were included for qualitative analysis and 7 for meta-analysis. Temporomandibular joint disorders were assessed through clinical diagnosis protocols with the aid of Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders, Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders, or Clinical Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. The authors searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane, LILACS, PubMed, Science Direct, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. Additional search of gray literature was performed. Selected studies were evaluated by using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Two subgroups were analyzed: Disk displacement with reduction (DDwR) and disk displacement without reduction (DDwoR). RESULTS: The validity of clinical protocols compared with MRI performed in studies evaluating only DDwR presented sensitivity of 44% (39%-49%) and specificity 51% (46%-57%). In studies evaluating only DDwoR, sensitivity was 22% (16%-30%) and specificity 93% (85%-98%). The area under the curve value for validity of clinical protocols in all studies was 0.63, 0.56 for studies evaluating DDwR and 0.64 for studies evaluating DDwoR. Area under the curve values were considered poor. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical examination protocols have poor validity to diagnose DDwR and DDwoR compared with MRI. MRI should be used to increase the diagnostic accuracy when the information provided can influence clinical decisions.
Authors: Priscila Brenner Hilgenberg-Sydney; Luís Felipe Schenato; Helena Bussular Marques; Fernanda Mara de Paiva Bertoli; Daniel Bonotto Journal: Oral Radiol Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 1.852