Validity of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders Axis I in Clinical and Research Settings

The lack of standardized diagnostic criteria for defining clinical subtypes of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) was the main motive to create the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD), which were provided to allow standardization and replication of research into the most common forms of muscle- and joint-related TMD. The RDC/TMD offered improvement compared to the older literature: the use of one system classifying TMD subgroups and the introduction of a dual-axis classification. The aim of this Focus Article is to appraise the RDC/TMD Axis I (physical findings). Since the original publication in 1992, no modification of the RDC/TMD has taken place, although research has yielded important new findings. The article outlines several concerns, including diagnostic issues in Axis I, classification criteria, feasibility of palpation sites, the myofascial diagnostic algorithm, the lack of joint tests (compression, traction), and missing subgroups. Using a gold standard examiner may improve calibration and offer better reliability; it does not improve any of the diagnostic validity issues. It is also noted that in the 2004 mission statement of the International Consortium For RDC/TMD-Based Research, the RDC/TMD are also advocated for clinical settings. Clinicians may eagerly embrace the RDC/TMD, believing that the clinical use of the RDC/TMD as a diagnostic procedure is already supported by evidence, but its application is not indicated in clinical settings. The article concludes that given the research developments, there is a need to update the RDC/TMD Axis I in the clinical research setting.

classification; diagnosis; RDC/TMD; temporomandibular disorders

1. De Leeuw R (ed) Orofacial Pain: Guidelines for Assessment, Diagnosis, and Management, ed 4. Chicago: Quintessence, 2008.

2. 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.

3. International consortium for RDC/TMD-based research. Available at: http://www.rdc-tmdinternational.org/. Accessed 2004.

4. Huddleston Slater JJR. A comparative study between clinical and instrumental techniques for the recognition of internal derangements. J Orofac Pain 2004;18:138–147.

5. Limchaichana N, Nilsson H, Ekberg EC, Nilner M. Clinical diagnoses and MRI findings in patients with TMD pain. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:237–245.

6. Steenks MH. Inclusion, exclusion, or diagnosis? J Orofac Pain 2004;18:81.

7. Wulf HR. Rational diagnosis and treatment. Blackwell Sci Pub. [Dutch translation] Utrecht, The Netherlands: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema, 1980.

8. Matsuguma T. The feasibility of palpating the posterior belly of digastric muscle. J Fukuoka Dent Coll 2003; 30:69–78.

9. Sato H, Matsugama T, Ishikawa M, Ukon S, Zeze R, Kodama J. A study of the accuracy of posterior digastric muscle palpation. J Orofac Pain 2000;14:239.

10. Johnstone DR, Templeton M. The feasibility of palpating the lateral pterygoid muscle. J Prosthet Dent 1980;44:318–323.

11. Stratmann U, Mokrys K, Meyer U et al. Clinical anatomy and palpability of the inferior lateral pterygoid muscle. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:548–554.

12. Turp JC, Minagi S. Palpation of the lateral pterygoid region in TMD—Where is the evidence? J Dent 2001;29:475–483.

13. Mahlendorff M, Stratmann U. Macro-anatomical studies on the palpability of the lateral inferior pterygoid muscle. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1989;44:S78–81.

14. Türp JC, Arima T, Minagi S. Is the posterior belly of the digastric muscle palpable? A qualitative systematic review of the literature. Clin Anat 2005;18:318–322.

15. List T, Dworkin SF. Comparing TMD diagnoses and clinical findings at Swedish and US TMD centers using research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders. J Orofac Pain 1996;10:240–253.

16. Yap AUJ, Dworkin SF, Chua EK, List T. Prevalence of temporomandibular disorder subtypes, psychologic distress, and psychological dysfunction in Asian patients. J Orofac Pain 2003;17:21–28.

17. Lobbezoo-Scholte AM, De Leeuw JRJ, Steenks MH, Bosman F, Buchner R, Olthoff LW. Diagnostic subgroups of craniomandibular disorders. Part I: Self-report data and clinical findings. J Orofac Pain 1995;9:24–36.

18. Lobbezoo-Scholte AM, Lobbezoo F, Steenks MH, De Leeuw JRJ, Bosman F. Diagnostic subgroups of craniomandibular disorders. Part II: Symptom profiles. J Orofac Pain 1995;9:37–43.

19. Lobbezoo-Scholte AM, Steenks MH, Faber JAJ, Bosman

F. Diagnostic value of orthopedic tests in patients with craniomandibular disorders. J Dent Res 1993; 72:1443–1453.

20. Truelove EL, Sommers EE, LeResche L, Dworkin SF, Von Korff M. Clinical diagnostic criteria for TMD: New classification permits multiple diagnoses. J Am Dent Assoc 1992;123(4):47–54.

21. Wijer A de, Lobbezoo-Scholte AM, Steenks MH, Bosman

F. Reliability of clinical findings in temporomandibular disorders. J Orofac Pain 1995;9:181–191.

22. Kropmans ThJB. Clinical Decision Making in Temporomandibular Joint Treatment Planning and Evaluation [thesis]. Groningen University, 2001.

23. John MT, Dworkin SF, Mancl LA. Reliability of clinical temporomandibular disorder diagnoses. Pain 2005; 118:61–69.

24. Drangsholt MT. Clinic patients with pain in their TMJs usually have MRI-documented internal derangements. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2002;2:41–43.

25. Bertram S, Rudisch A, Innerhofer K, Pumpel E, Grubwieser G, Emshoff R. Diagnosing TMJ internal derangement and osteoarthritis with magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Dent Assoc 2001;132:753–761.