Home Subscription Services

Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache
OFPH Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
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)

Winter 2010
Volume 24 , Issue 1

Share Abstract:

The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. III: Validity of Axis I Diagnoses

Edmond Truelove, DDS, MSD/Wei Pan, PhD/John O. Look, DDS, PhD, MPH /Lloyd A. Mancl, PhD, MS, BA/ Richard K. Ohrbach, DDS, PhD/Ana M. Velly, DDS, MS, PhD/Kimberly H. Huggins, RDH, BS/Patricia Lenton, RDH, MA/Eric L. Schiffman, DDS,

Pages: 35–47
PMID: 20213030

Aims: To estimate the criterion validity of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I TMD diagnoses. Methods: A combined total of 614 TMD community and clinic cases and 91 controls were examined at three study sites. RDC/TMD Axis I diagnoses were algorithmically derived from an examination performed by calibrated dental hygienists. Reference standards (“gold standards”) were established by means of consensus diagnoses rendered by two TMD experts using all available clinical data, including imaging findings. Validity of the RDC/TMD Axis I TMD diagnoses was estimated relative to the reference-standard diagnoses (gold standard diagnoses). Target sensitivity and specificity were set a priori at ≥ 0.70 and ≥ 0.95, respectively. Results: Target sensitivity and specificity were not observed for any of the eight RDC/TMD diagnoses. The highest validity was achieved for Group Ia myofascial pain (sensitivity 0.65, specificity 0.92) and Group Ib myofascial pain with limited opening (sensitivity 0.79, specificity 0.92). Target sensitivity and specificity were observed only when both Group I diagnoses were combined (0.87 and 0.98, respectively). For Group II (disc displacements) and Group III (arthralgia, arthritis, arthrosis) diagnoses, all estimates for sensitivity were below target (0.03 to 0.53), and specificity ranged from below to on target (0.86 to 0.99). Conclusion: The RDC/TMD Axis I TMD diagnoses did not reach the targets set at sensitivity of ≥ 0.70 and specificity of ≥ 0.95. Target validity was obtained only for myofascial pain without differentiation between normal and limited opening. Revision of the current Axis I TMD diagnostic algorithms is warranted to improve their validity. J OROFAC PAIN 2010;24:35–47

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.
  © 2017 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