Article Data

  • Views 265
  • Dowloads 49

Original Research

Open Access

A Comparative Study Between Clinical and Instrumental Methods for the Recognition of Internal Derangements with a Clicking Sound on Condylar Movement

  • James J. R. Huddleston Slater1
  • Frank Lobbezoo1
  • Yunn-Jy Chen2
  • Machiel Naeije1,*,

1Department of Oral Function, Section Oral Kinesiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands

2School of Dentistry, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

DOI: 10.11607/jofph.18138 Vol.18,Issue 2,June 2004 pp.138-147

Published: 30 June 2004

*Corresponding Author(s): Machiel Naeije E-mail: m.naeije@acta.nl

Abstract

Aims: To compare the results of 3 methods of recognizing internal derangements with a clicking sound on condylar movement: 2 function-based methods (clinical examination and condylar move-ment recording) and 1 anatomy-based method (magnetic reso-nance imaging [MRI]). Methods: For the recognition of an ante-rior or posterior disc displacement with reduction and of hypermobility within the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), 42 par-ticipants underwent a clinical examination, an opto-electronic movement recording, and an MRI scan. The examinations were executed in a single-blind design, with different experienced exam-iners for each technique. In addition, for 10 randomly chosen par-ticipants, the condylar movement recordings and the MRI scans were carried out twice. Without the examiners’ knowledge, these second recordings were added to the other data. Results: Intraobserver reliability for the recognition of internal derange-ments was excellent for condylar movement recording (κ = 0.86) and fair to good for MRI (κ = 0.73). Intermethod agreement was fair to good (κ = 0.59) between the 2 function-based techniques. However, intermethod agreement between the anatomy-based MRI technique and either of the 2 function-based techniques was poor (for condylar movement recording, κ = 0.15; and for clinical examination, κ = 0.12). Conclusion: There is a great discrepancy between the diagnoses for internal derangements based upon anatomical TMJ characteristics and those based on functional TMJ characteristics. For a function-based diagnosis, there is prob-ably no need for the sophisticated technique of condylar move-ment recording, since that method shows fair to good agreement with a carefully performed clinical examination.

Keywords

clinical criteria; condylar movement recordings; internal derangements; magnetic resonance imaging; temporomandibular joint

Cite and Share

James J. R. Huddleston Slater,Frank Lobbezoo,Yunn-Jy Chen,Machiel Naeije. A Comparative Study Between Clinical and Instrumental Methods for the Recognition of Internal Derangements with a Clicking Sound on Condylar Movement. Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache. 2004. 18(2);138-147.

References

1. The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:48–110.

2. American Academy of Orofacial Pain. McNeill C (ed). Temporomandibular Disorders: Guidelines for Classification, Assessment, and Management. Quintessence: Chicago, 1993.

3. Blankestijn J, Boering G. Posterior dislocation of the temporomandibular disc. Int J Oral Surg 1985;14:437–443.

4. Lückerath W, Helfgen EH, Schlolaut KH. Formen exzentrisch-posteriorer Verlagerungen des Discus articularis. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1989;44:S45–S48.

5. Westesson PL, Larheim TA, Tanaka H. Posterior disc displacement in the temporomandibular joint. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;56:1266–1273.

6. Dworkin SF, LeResche L. Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders: Review, criteria, examinations and specifications, critique. J Craniomandib Disord Facial Oral Pain 1992;6:301–355.

7. Huddleston Slater JJR, Visscher CM, Lobbezoo F, Naeije M. The intra-articular distance within the TMJ during free and loaded closing movements. J Dent Res 1999;78: 1815–1820.

8. Huddleston Slater JJR, Lobbezoo F, Naeije M. Mandibular movement characteristics of an anterior disc displacement with reduction. J Orofac Pain 2002;6:135–142.

9. Wise SW, Conway WF, Laskin DM. Temporomandibular joint clicking only on closure. Report of a case and explanation of the cause. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993;51: 1272–1273.

10. Yoda T, Imai H, Shinjyo Y, Sakamoto I, Abe M, Enomoto S. Effect of arthrocentesis on TMJ disturbance of mouth closure with loud clicking: A preliminary study. Cranio 2002;20:18–22.

11. Huddleston Slater JJR, Lobbezoo F, Naeije M. Recognition of internal derangements. J Oral Rehabil (in press).

12. Naeije M, Van der Weijden JJ, Megens CCEJ. OKAS-3D: An optoelectronic jaw movement recording system with six degrees of freedom. Med Biol Eng Comput 1995;33: 683–688.

13. Yatabe M, Zwijnenburg A, Megens CCEJ, Naeije M. The kinematic center: A reference for condylar movements. J Dent Res 1995;74:1644–1648.

14. Naeije M, Huddleston Slater JJR, Lobbezoo F. Variation in movement traces of the kinematic center of the temporomandibular joint. J Orofac Pain 1999;13:121–127.

15. Katzberg RW, Westesson PL. Diagnosis of the Temporo-mandibular Joint. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1993:3–23.

16. Fleiss JL, Chilton NW. The measurement of interexaminer agreement on periodical disease. J Periodontal Res 1983;18:601–606.

17. Obwegeser H, Aarnes K. Zur Luxation des Discus articularis des Kiefergelenkes. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnheilkd 1973;83:67–70.

18. Freesmeyer HB. Zahnärztliche Funktionstherapie. München: Karl Hanser Verlag, 1993.

19. American Academy of Orofacial Pain. Okeson JP (ed). Orofacial Pain: Guidelines for Assessment, Diagnosis, and Management. Chicago: Quintessence, 1996.

20. Farrar WB. Characteristics of the condylar path in internal derangements of the TMJ. J Prosthet Dent 1978;39: 319–323.

21. van Willigen J. The sagittal condylar movements of the clicking temporomandibular joint. J Oral Rehabil 1979;6: 167–175.

22. Klett R. Elektronisches Registrierverfahren für die Kiefergelenksdiagnostik. Dtsch Zahnärztl 1982;37:991–998.

23. Ozawa S, Tanne K. Diagnostic accuracy of sagittal condylar movement patterns for identifying internal derangement of the temporomandibular joint. J Orofac Pain 1997;11:222–231.

24. Morneburg T, Pröschel PA. Differences between traces of adjacent condylar points and their impact on clinical evaluation of condyle motion. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11: 317–324.

25. Mauderli AP, Lundeen HC, Loughner B. Condylar movement recordings for analyzing TMJ derangements. J Craniomandib Disord Facial Oral Pain 1988;2:119–127.

26. Romanelli GG, Harper R, Mock D, Pharoah MJ, Tenenbaum HC. Evaluation of temporomandibular joint internal derangement. J Orofac Pain 1993;7:254–262.

27. Parlett K, Paesani D, Tallents RH, Hatala MA. Temporo-mandibular joint axiography and MRI findings: A comparative study. J Prosthet Dent 1993;70:521–531.

28. Kircos LT, Ortendahl DA, Mark AS, Arakawa M. Magnetic resonance imaging of the TMJ disc in asymptomatic volunteers. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1987;45: 852–854.

29. Ribeiro RF, Tallents RH, Katzberg RW, et al. The prevalence of disc displacement in symptomatic and asymptomatic volunteers aged 6 to 25 years. J Orofac Pain 1997;11:37–47.

30. Barclay P, Hollender LG, Maravilla KR, Truelove EL. Comparison of clinical magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis in patients with disc displacement in the temporo-mandibular joint. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;88:37–43.

31. Larheim TA, Westesson P-L, Sano T. Temporomandibular joint disk displacement: Comparison in asymptomatic volunteers and patients. Radiology 2001;218:428–432.

32. Chen YJ, Gallo LM, Meier D, Palla S. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging technique for the study of the temporo-mandibular joint. J Orofac Pain 2000;14:65–73.

33. Chen YJ, Gallo LM, Palla S. The mediolateral temporo-mandibular joint disc position: An in vivo quantitative study. J Orofac Pain 2002;16:29–38.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index (SCI)

Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)

BIOSIS Previews

Scopus

Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top