The International journal of prosthodontics · 2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of Different Evaluation Approaches for the 5Ts Screener in Temporomandibular Disorder Assessment.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Dewi Ni Luh, Yap Adrian Ujin, Anggraini Wita, Marpaung Carolina
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of different Five TMD Symptoms (5Ts) evaluation approaches and to establish the most accurate method and cut-off point (CP) in non-clinical populations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 278 participants (mean age 22.17 years [SD 1.82]) recruited from a large private university. Participants completed a survey including demographics, the 5Ts with yes/no responses, and 5Ts with frequency options (5Ts-F). Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) diagnoses were established using the DC/TMD protocol and algorithms. Diagnostic accuracy was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curves, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for four approaches: A1 (5Ts, conventional), A2 (5Ts, CP 1.5), A3 (5Ts-F, CP 1.5), and A4 (5Ts-F, CP 2.5).
RESULTS: Among participants, 68.7% received a DC/TMD diagnosis. A1 identified 72.3% as TMD-positive, showing AUCs of 0.94 for all TMDs, PT, and IT. A2 to A4 had AUCs below 0.9. A1's sensitivity/specificity were 100%/88.5%. When items were analyzed separately, A1's AUCs increased to 0.99 for PT and 0.95 for IT.
CONCLUSIONS: The conventional 5Ts assessment method was the most accurate, and total scores of ≥ 1 can identify the presence of TMDs in non-clinical samples when points are assigned for yes/no responses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 278 participants (mean age 22.17 years [SD 1.82]) recruited from a large private university. Participants completed a survey including demographics, the 5Ts with yes/no responses, and 5Ts with frequency options (5Ts-F). Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) diagnoses were established using the DC/TMD protocol and algorithms. Diagnostic accuracy was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curves, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for four approaches: A1 (5Ts, conventional), A2 (5Ts, CP 1.5), A3 (5Ts-F, CP 1.5), and A4 (5Ts-F, CP 2.5).
RESULTS: Among participants, 68.7% received a DC/TMD diagnosis. A1 identified 72.3% as TMD-positive, showing AUCs of 0.94 for all TMDs, PT, and IT. A2 to A4 had AUCs below 0.9. A1's sensitivity/specificity were 100%/88.5%. When items were analyzed separately, A1's AUCs increased to 0.99 for PT and 0.95 for IT.
CONCLUSIONS: The conventional 5Ts assessment method was the most accurate, and total scores of ≥ 1 can identify the presence of TMDs in non-clinical samples when points are assigned for yes/no responses.