Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache
OFPH Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitter
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: OFPH
Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache

Edited by Barry J. Sessle, BDS, MDS, BSc, PhD, FRSC

Official Journal of the American Academy of Orofacial Pain,
the European, Asian, and Ibero-Latin Academies of Craniomandibular
Disorders, and the Australian Academy of Orofacial Pain

ISSN 2333-0384 (print) • ISSN 2333-0376 (online)

Publication:
Spring 2004
Volume 18 , Issue 2

Back
Share Abstract:

A Comparative Study Between Clinical and Instrumental Methods for the Recognition of Internal Derangements with a Clicking Sound on Condylar Movement

James J. R. Huddleston Slater, DDS/Frank Lobbezoo, DDS, PhD/Yunn-Jy Chen, DDS, Dr Med Dent/Machiel Naeije, PhD

Pages: 138–147
PMID: 15250434

Aims: To compare the results of 3 methods of recognizing internal derangements with a clicking sound on condylar movement: 2 function-based methods (clinical examination and condylar movement recording) and 1 anatomy-based method (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]). Methods: For the recognition of an anterior or posterior disc displacement with reduction and of hypermobility within the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), 42 participants underwent a clinical examination, an opto-electronic movement recording, and an MRI scan. The examinations were executed in a single-blind design, with different experienced examiners for each technique. In addition, for 10 randomly chosen participants, the condylar movement recordings and the MRI scans were carried out twice. Without the examiners’ knowledge, these second recordings were added to the other data. Results: Intraobserver reliability for the recognition of internal derangements was excellent for condylar movement recording ( = 0.86) and fair to good for MRI ( = 0.73). Intermethod agreement was fair to good ( = 0.59) between the 2 function-based techniques. However, intermethod agreement between the anatomy-based MRI technique and either of the 2 function-based techniques was poor (for condylar movement recording,  = 0.15; and for clinical examination,  = 0.12). Conclusion: There is a great discrepancy between the diagnoses for internal derangements based upon anatomical TMJ characteristics and those based on functional TMJ characteristics. For a function-based diagnosis, there is probably no need for the sophisticated technique of condylar movement recording, since that method shows fair to good agreement with a carefully performed clinical examination. J OROFAC PAIN 2004;18:138–147

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog