Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to N D Mohl.
This article was prepared by the above authors and submitted to members of the TMD academic community for their endorsement. A total of 120 people signed an endorsement; their names are available on request.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This article was prepared and submitted to members of the TMD academic community for their endorsement. A total of 120 people signed an endorsement; their names are available on request.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Temporomandibular disorders encompass a group of musculoskeletal conditions that involve the joints, the masticatory musculature, or both. In any given patient, there may be several overlapping TM disorders, an orofacial pain condition mimicking a TM disorder or a concomitant TMD and non-TM disorder. The differential diagnosis becomes extremely important.
Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) encompass a group of musculoskeletal conditions that involve the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) or joints, the masticatory musculature, or both. These conditions are typically characterized by pain in the pre-auricular area that is usually aggravated by chewing or other jaw function and is often accompanied, either singly or in combination, by limitation of jaw movement, joint sounds, palpable muscle tenderness, or joint soreness. As with most other musculoskeletal conditions, the diagnostic "gold standard" for TMD is based upon an evaluation of the patient's history and clinical examination, supplemented, when appropriate, by TM joint imaging. It is against this "gold standard" that the reliability and validity of diagnostic modalities must be compared. With regard to electronic devices, several reviews of the scientific literature have concluded that the diagnostic reliability, validity, sensitivity, and specificity of such devices in the diagnosis of TMD have not been established. In addition, although clinical examination of the dentition may provide useful diagnostic information for some conditions, specific occlusal relationships have poor sensitivity and specificity when related to the presence or absence of TMD. TMJ imaging, when indicated, is useful in the detection of pathology within the joint, provided that validated criteria are applied to an analysis of the image. However, the assessment of condylar position as a diagnostic criterion for TMD has very poor reliability and validity.
The role of electronic devices in the diagnosis of TMD raises the critical question of whether the clinician can gain diagnostically relevant information from them. This is of serious concern in view of the sparse, unreplicated and invalidated scientific evidence linking the use of such devices to TMD diagnosis and subsequent therapy. Until such time as scientific studies, using blinded evaluations to compare TMD patients and controls, demonstrate acceptable levels of reliability, validity, sensitivity and specificity, as well as positive and negative predictive values, the use of such devices will continue to have questionable diagnostic validity and, therefore, will continue to be considered experimental. Thus, clinicians should carefully consider the diagnostic and therapeutic consequences of using electronic devices prior to adding them to their dental armamentarium.
The dilemma of scientific knowledge versus clinical management of TMD is discussed by focus on five questions; (1) What is scientific evidence and how is it transmitted? (2) What important evidence is lacking in the field of TMD? (3) What clinical concepts have been challenged by the scientific evidence? (4) Why is there adherence to concepts that appear to conflict with the evidence? (5) How does the clinician provide patient care in the face of uncertainty while retaining scientific integrity? It is concluded that no fundamental reason for a dilemma between scientific evidence and clinical practice need exist provided that (1) clinical investigators use appropriate research protocols and report results in refereed scientific journals and (2) dentists are familiar with the requirements of sound scientific evidence, interpret this evidence and its clinical implications, and apply it to the care of TMD patients.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The guidelines presented in this article for diagnosis and treatment of extreme tooth wear are not meant to be all inclusive. Every patient has unique treatment needs, and all of these needs may not be addressed specifically in this article. We believe, however, that careful adherence to the guidelines presented should facilitate a successful treatment of most if not all patients with moderate or severe tooth wear. The general guidelines for treatment of these patients include the following: 1. A comprehensive examination, including a thorough medical and dental history, orofacial and dental clinical examination, dental radiographs, TMD screening history and examination, impressions and jaw relation records for mounting casts in a semi-adjustable articulator, 2. A diagnostic wax-up and diagnostic occlusal adjustment on additional or duplicated mounted casts, 3. Careful planning and consultation regarding the need for preparatory treatment. Careful integration and sequencing of the different areas of treatment needed to enhance the finished result, 4. Discussion with the patient of the different treatment alternatives and sequences possible for his or her individual case, with presentation of advantages and disadvantages and prognosis for each, 5. Finally, careful execution of the agreed upon treatment plan by the dentist. Although not specifically mentioned, treatment success requires a highly motivated patient and skilled dental laboratory technicians. These "treatment partners" should be included in the planning stages of treatment as early as possible to enhance the possibility of having a successful treatment result.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD) encompass a number of clinical problems that involve the masticatory musculature, the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), or both. In any given patient, there exists the possibility of several overlapping TM disorders, an orofacial pain condition mimicking a TMD, or a concomitant TMD and non-TMD disorder. Since differential diagnosis involves the determination of which diseases or disorders a patient is suffering from by systematically contrasting the clinical characteristics, differentiation from among multiple possible conditions complicates the diagnostic process, which often must be approached with a certain degree of uncertainty. In addition, the therapeutic decisions that emanate from the diagnostic process have their own predictive uncertainties. These uncertainties can be ameliorated by coupling available clinical research data with structured clinical problem solving methods during the diagnostic-therapeutic decision making process. It is within this context that this article includes a discussion of the rationale for why the clinician should use decision making methods for TMD, a review of previous attempts at developing decision models for TMD, a discussion of the diagnosis of TMD with particular emphasis on the reliability and validity of their diagnostic criteria, a summary of the efficacy of therapeutic modalities and their application to treatment decisions, a sample decision tree analysis of a TM disorder, and some general recommendations for dental education.
Variability of closest speaking space was compared with that of interocclusal distance in 30 dentulous subjects to the nearest 0.1 mm on the screen of a mandibular kinesiograph. Postural rest position was elicited by the subjects saying /M/ and relaxing the jaw. Closest speaking space was defined as the vertical difference in the position of the mandible from the immediate end of rapid counting from 60 to 66 to centric occlusion. The two variables were measured in random order 20 times each. The subjects were examined for two data collecting sessions. The variance of the closest speaking space was smaller than the variance for interocclusal distance for 26 of 30 subjects. The difference between the mean variances was statistically significant, p greater than 0.1 (t 3 and t 3.41, df 29).
Changes in occlusal vertical dimension have been claimed to cause masticatory system disorders. Early articles on this subject were mainly limited to clinical case reports, and the more recent clinical studies have been flawed by the lack of control groups, blind evaluation, and by poor definition of criteria for evaluating the health of the masticatory system. Research with humans and animals has shown that if increases in occlusal vertical dimension are not extreme and the appliance used covers most of the dentition, there is a good possibility of adaptation. Current scientific knowledge does not support the hypothesis that moderate changes in occlusal vertical dimension are detrimental to the masticatory system.