Article

Epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of temporomandibular disorders.

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, USA. Electronic address: .
Dental clinics of North America 07/2013; 57(3):465-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2013.04.006
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) is a multifactorial disease process caused by muscle hyperfunction or parafunction, traumatic injuries, hormonal influences, and articular changes. Symptoms of TMD include decreased mandibular range of motion, muscle and joint pain, joint crepitus, and functional limitation or deviation of jaw opening. Only after failure of noninvasive options should more invasive and nonreversible treatments be initiated. Treatment can be divided into noninvasive, minimally invasive, and invasive options. Temporomandibular joint replacement is reserved for severely damaged joints with end-stage disease that has failed all other more conservative treatment modalities.

1 Bookmark
 · 
163 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: [Purpose] This study compared the effectiveness of home exercise alone versus home exercise combined with ultrasound for patients with temporomandibular joint disorders. [Subjects and Methods] This study enrolled 23 female and 15 male patients who were divided randomly into two groups. The home exercise group performed a home exercise program consisting of an exercise program and patient education, and the home exercise combined with ultrasound group received ultrasound therapy in addition to the home exercise program. Pain intensity was evaluated using a visual analogue scale. Pain free maximum mouth opening was evaluated at baseline and 2 weeks after the treatment. [Results] There was no difference between the two groups in baseline values. After the treatment, the visual analogue scale decreased and pain free maximum mouth opening scores improved significantly in each group. Additionally, both values were higher in the home exercise combined with ultrasound group than in the home exercise group. [Conclusion] The combination of home exercise combined with ultrasound appears to be more effective at providing pain relief and increasing mouth opening than does home exercise alone for patients with temporomandibular joint disorders.
    Journal of Physical Therapy Science 12/2014; 26(12):1847-9. · 0.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Laser surgery enables for very accurate, fast and clean modeling of tissue. The specific and controlled cutting and ablation of tissue, however, remains a central challenge in the field of clinical laser applications. The lack of information on what kind of tissue is being ablated at the bottom of the cut may lead to iatrogenic damage of structures that were meant to be preserved. One such example is the shaping or removal of diseased cartilaginous and bone tissue in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Diseases of the TMJ can induce deformation and perforation of the cartilaginous discus articularis, as well as alterations to the cartilaginous surface of the condyle or even the bone itself. This may result in restrictions of movement and pain. The aim of a surgical intervention ranges from specific ablation and shaping of diseased cartilage, bone or synovial tissues to extensive removal of TMJ structures. One approach to differentiate between these tissues is to use Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS). The ultimate goal is a LIBS guided feedback control system for surgical laser systems that enables real-time tissue identification for tissue specific ablation. In the presented study, the authors focused on the LIBS based differentiation between cartilage tissue and cortical bone tissue using an ex-vivo pig model.
    Biomedical Optics Express 11/2014; 5(11):4013-4023. · 3.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Subjective symptoms of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) have rarely been studied by age group. We aimed to compare self-reported pain intensity, sleeping difficulty, and treatment outcomes of patients with myofascial TMDs among three age groups. The study population included 179 consecutive patients (151 women and 28 men) who underwent comprehensive clinical examinations at a university-based orofacial pain center. They were classified into myofascial pain subgroups based on the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. They were stratified by age group: M1, under 20 years; M2, 20-39 years; and M3, 40 years and older. The patients scored their pretreatment symptoms (first visit) and post-treatment symptoms (last visit) on a form composed of three items that assessed pain intensity and one item that assessed sleeping difficulty. Their treatment options (i.e., pharmacotherapy, physical therapy, and orthopedic appliances) and duration were recorded. All variables were compared between sexes in each group and between the age groups by using the Kruskal-Wallis test, the Mann-Whitney U test, the chi-square test, and analysis of variance (p < 0.05). No significant sex differences were found in any age group. Only sleeping difficulty was significantly different before treatment (p = 0.009). No significant differences were observed in the treatment options or treatment duration. After treatment, the intensity of jaw/face pain and headache and sleeping difficulty was significantly reduced in groups M2 and M3, but only the intensity of jaw/face pain was significantly decreased in group M1. The changes in the scores of pain intensity and sleeping difficulty were not different between the groups. Pain intensity does not differ by age group, but older patients with myofascial TMDs had greater sleeping difficulties. However, there were no differences between the age groups in the treatment outcomes. Clinicians should carefully consider the age-related characteristics of patients with myofascial TMDs when developing appropriate management strategies.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 12/2014; 15(1):423. · 1.90 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
51 Downloads
Available from
May 20, 2014