The International journal of prosthodontics · 2012
Sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging and computed axiography in the diagnosis of temporomandibular joint disorders in a selected patient population.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Piancino Maria Grazia, Cirillo Stefano, Frongia Gianluigi, Cena Fabrizio, Bracco Andrea Adriano, Dalmasso Paola, Bracco Pietro
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare sensitivity differences and interpretative agreement for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed axiography (CA) tracings in a patient population group with temporomandibular disorder (TMD).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A convenience sample of 173 patients (53 men, 120 women; mean age: 33.2 ± 2.6 years) diagnosed with TMD was selected for this study. Each patient underwent an evaluation as per the European Academy of Craniomandibular Disorders clinical form as well as MRI and CA.
RESULTS: Use of the MRI results as the gold standard for the planned comparison led to the following observations: a CA sensitivity of 68% for joints without morphologic changes (so-called normal temporomandibular joints [TMJs]), sensitivity of 27% for those with disc displacement, and sensitivity of 8% for those with osteoarthritis. The kappa index, or agreement between the two examination methods, was weak for normal TMJs (0.16), acceptable for anterior disc displacement with reduction (0.28), little for anterior disc displacement without reduction (0.10), and very little for morphologic alterations (0.01).
CONCLUSION: The sensitivity and agreement of the two examination methods was generally low. It was even worse when pathologic changes in the TMJ were more severe. MRI and CA are different examinations that could both be considered for severe TMD diagnosis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A convenience sample of 173 patients (53 men, 120 women; mean age: 33.2 ± 2.6 years) diagnosed with TMD was selected for this study. Each patient underwent an evaluation as per the European Academy of Craniomandibular Disorders clinical form as well as MRI and CA.
RESULTS: Use of the MRI results as the gold standard for the planned comparison led to the following observations: a CA sensitivity of 68% for joints without morphologic changes (so-called normal temporomandibular joints [TMJs]), sensitivity of 27% for those with disc displacement, and sensitivity of 8% for those with osteoarthritis. The kappa index, or agreement between the two examination methods, was weak for normal TMJs (0.16), acceptable for anterior disc displacement with reduction (0.28), little for anterior disc displacement without reduction (0.10), and very little for morphologic alterations (0.01).
CONCLUSION: The sensitivity and agreement of the two examination methods was generally low. It was even worse when pathologic changes in the TMJ were more severe. MRI and CA are different examinations that could both be considered for severe TMD diagnosis.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultArthralgiaComputer SystemsCraniomandibular DisordersFemaleHumansJaw Relation RecordJoint DislocationsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMandibular CondyleOsteoarthritisPhotographyRadiography, PanoramicSensitivity and SpecificitySingle-Blind MethodTemporomandibular Joint DiscTemporomandibular Joint DisordersTemporomandibular Joint Dysfunction Syndrome