Cranio : the journal of craniomandibular practice · 2026
Knowledge and clinical attitudes regarding temporomandibular disorders among orthodontists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Durmaz Meyra, Eriş Mehmet Alp, Kadıoğlu Merve Berika, Yurttutan Mehmet Emre
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare temporomandibular disorder (TMDs) knowledge and clinical attitudes between orthodontists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS).
METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 160 participants (80 per specialty) in Türkiye. A 41-item online questionnaire assessed knowledge across four domains and clinical attitudes. Responses were compared with expert reference rates and between specialties.
RESULTS: Both groups showed substantial knowledge deficiencies, particularly in pathophysiology and chronic pain. OMFS demonstrated significantly higher correct-response rates than orthodontists across multiple items in all four knowledge domains, whereas orthodontists performed better on one pathophysiology item. Clinical attitudes were generally positive; OMFS more frequently supported patient information and counseling, while orthodontists more frequently favored referral of suspected TMD cases.
CONCLUSION: Despite positive clinical attitudes, important TMD knowledge gaps persist in both specialties, with OMFS showing greater overall knowledge. Postgraduate education should reinforce evidence-based, diagnosis-driven, and biopsychosocial TMD management.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 160 participants (80 per specialty) in Türkiye. A 41-item online questionnaire assessed knowledge across four domains and clinical attitudes. Responses were compared with expert reference rates and between specialties.
RESULTS: Both groups showed substantial knowledge deficiencies, particularly in pathophysiology and chronic pain. OMFS demonstrated significantly higher correct-response rates than orthodontists across multiple items in all four knowledge domains, whereas orthodontists performed better on one pathophysiology item. Clinical attitudes were generally positive; OMFS more frequently supported patient information and counseling, while orthodontists more frequently favored referral of suspected TMD cases.
CONCLUSION: Despite positive clinical attitudes, important TMD knowledge gaps persist in both specialties, with OMFS showing greater overall knowledge. Postgraduate education should reinforce evidence-based, diagnosis-driven, and biopsychosocial TMD management.