DOI 10.1016/j.oooo.2017.11.012
Prevalence of temporomandibular disorders discovered incidentally during routine dental examination using the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) discovered incidentally during routine dental examination, identify disease patterns, and evaluate patients' attitude toward accepting treatment.
STUDY
DESIGN
A total of 3009 patients were examined at the University Dental Hospital Sharjah (Sharjah, United Arab Emirates). Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD) Axes I and II were used for assessment. Patients with acute/serious dysfunction symptoms underwent cone beam computed tomography examination. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to confirm the diagnosis of disk displacement.
RESULTS
Non-self-reported TMD prevalence was 10.8% (n = 325). Among patients with TMDs, women were diagnosed more often (65.85%) (P < .05) and those between ages 25 and 45 years (65.54%) (P < .05). Axis I assessment revealed disk displacement with reduction (group IIa) was the most common (40.92%). Axis II chronic pain grade showed that 32.62% of patients with TMDs experienced chronic pain, whereas 66.77% had mild disability. Interest in pursuing treatment was indicated by 92.31% of patients. Cone beam computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging assessments changed the primary diagnosis in 26.08% and 18.47% of cases, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
TMD screening during routine dental examination led to the diagnosis of non-self-reported TMDs, most commonly related to disk displacement with reduction. Radiographic assessment was important to confirm TMD diagnosis. Patients diagnosed with TMD during dental screening expressed interest in pursuing treatment.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.