Article Data

  • Views 261
  • Dowloads 65

Original Research

Open Access

Diagnostic Accuracy of Temporomandibular Disorder Pain Tests: A Multicenter Study

  • Corine M. Visscher1,*,
  • Machiel Naeije1
  • Antoon De Laat2
  • Ambra Michelotti3
  • Maria Nilner4
  • Bart Craane2
  • EwaCarin Ekberg4
  • Mauro Farella3
  • Frank Lobbezoo1

1Department of Oral Kinesiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam Louwesweg 1, 1066 EA Amsterdam Amsterdam, The Netherlands

2Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium

3Department of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Italy

4Department of Stomatognathic Physiology Malmö University, Sweden

DOI: 10.11607/ofph.23.2.03 Vol.23,Issue 2,June 2009 pp.108-114

Published: 30 June 2009

*Corresponding Author(s): Corine M. Visscher E-mail: c.visscher@acta.nl

Abstract

Aims: To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) clinical examination and of the dynamic/static tests for the recognition of TMD pain. Since the diagnosis of TMD pain is especially complicated in persistent orofacial pain patients, the test outcomes in persistent TMD pain patients were contrasted to those in two control groups: a group of persistent dental pain patients and a group of pain-free subjects. Methods: In 125 persistent TMD pain patients, 88 persistent dental pain patients, and 121 pain-free subjects, a blind and standardized clinical examination was performed. Results: For the RDC/TMD, sensitivity (88%) was high and specificity was low (pain-free group: 71%; dental pain group: 45%). For the dynamic/static tests, sensitivity was 65% and specificities were 91% and 84%, respectively. Comparing the outcomes of the two examinations showed higher positive likelihood ratios for dynamic/static tests (P < .001), and lower negative likelihood ratios for the RDC/TMD examination (P < .01). Conclusion: For the confirmation of a suspicion of TMD pain, it is better to rely on positive dynamic/static tests. To confirm the absence of TMD pain, it is better to rely on a negative RDC/TMD examination.

Keywords

dental pain; diagnostic accuracy; dynamic/static tests; RDC; TMD

Cite and Share

Corine M. Visscher,Machiel Naeije,Antoon De Laat,Ambra Michelotti,Maria Nilner,Bart Craane,EwaCarin Ekberg,Mauro Farella,Frank Lobbezoo. Diagnostic Accuracy of Temporomandibular Disorder Pain Tests: A Multicenter Study. Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache. 2009. 23(2);108-114.

References

1. Dworkin SF, LeResche L. Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders: Review, criteria, examinations and specifications, critique. J Craniomandib Disord 1992;6:301–355.

2. Merskey H, Bogduk N (eds). Classification of Chronic Pain. Descriptions of Chronic Pain Syndromes and Definitions of Pain Terms, ed 2. Seattle: IASP Press, 1994:1–119.

3. Spitzer WO, LeBlanc FE, Dupuis M. Scientific approach to the assessment and management of activity-related spinal disorders. A monograph for clinicians report of the Quebec task force on spinal disorders. Spine 1987;12(suppl 7):S1–S59.

4. Wolfe F, Smythe HA, Yunus MB, et al. The American college of rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia. Report of the multicenter criteria committee. Arthritis Rheum 1990;33:160–172.

5. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative. BMJ 2003;326:41–44.

6. Steenks MH, de Wijer A. Validity of the research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders Axis I in clinical and research settings. J Orofac Pain 2009;23:9–16.

7. Goulet J-P. Critical commentary 1: Validity of the research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders Axis I in clinical and research settings. J Orofac Pain 2009;23:17–19.

8. Greene CS. Critical commentary 2: Validity of the research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders Axis I in clinical and research settings. J Orofac Pain 2009;23:20–23.

9. Svensson P. Critical commentary 3: Validity of the research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders Axis I in clinical and research settings. J Orofac Pain 2009;23:24–25.

10. Croft P. Testing for tenderness: What’s the point? J Rheumatol 2000;27:2531–2533.

11. Goldenberg DL. Fibromyalgia syndrome a decade later: What have we learned? Arch Intern Med 1999;159: 777–785.

12. List T, John MT, Dworkin SF, Svensson P. Recalibration improves inter-examiner reliability of TMD examination. Acta Odontol Scand 2006;64:146–152.

13. Lobbezoo F, van Selms MK, John MT, et al. Use of the research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders for multinational research: Translation efforts and reliability assessments in the Netherlands. J Orofac Pain 2005;19:301–308.

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

15. Naeije M, Hansson TL. Electromyographic screening of myogenous and arthrogenous TMJ dysfunction patients. J Oral Rehabil 1986;13:433–441.

16. Visscher CM, Lobbezoo F, de Boer W, van der Zaag J, Verheij JG, Naeije M. Clinical tests in distinguishing between persons with or without craniomandibular or cervical spinal pain complaints. Eur J Oral Sci 2000;108: 475–483.

17. Visscher CM, Lobbezoo F, Naeije M. A reliability study of dynamic and static pain tests in temporomandibular disorder patients. J Orofac Pain 2007;21:39–45.

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

19. Newcombe RG. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: Comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 1998;17:857–872.

20. Widmer CG, Lund JP, Feine JS. Evaluation of diagnostic tests for TMD. J Calif Dent Assoc 1990;18:53–60.

21. Greenland S. Modeling and variable selection in epidemiologic analysis. Am J Public Health 1989;79:340–349.

22. Lipton JA, Ship JA, Larach-Robinson D. Estimated prevalence and distribution of reported orofacial pain in the United States. J Am Dent Assoc 1993;124:115–121.

23. Laslett M, Aprill CN, McDonald B, Young SB. Diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain: Validity of individual provocation tests and composites of tests. Man Ther 2005;10: 207–218.

24. Cohen ML, Quintner JL. Fibromyalgia syndrome, a problem of tautology. Lancet 1993;342:906–909.

25. Temporomandibular disorders. In: De Leeuw R (ed). Orofacial Pain. Guidelines for Assessment, Diagnosis, and Management. Chicago: Quintessence, 2008:129–204.

26. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999;282:1061–1066.

27. Croft P, Schollum J, Silman A. Population study of tender point counts and pain as evidence of fibromyalgia. BMJ 1994;309:696–699.

28. Schochat T, Raspe H. Elements of fibromyalgia in an open population. Rheumatology 2003;42:829–835.

29. Holleman Jr DR, Simel DL. Quantitative assessments from the clinical examination. How should clinicians integrate the numerous results? J Gen Intern Med 1997;12: 165–171.

30. Fricton JR, Schiffman E. Management of masticatory myalgia and arthralgia. In: Lund JP, Lavigne G, Dubner R, Sessle BJ (eds). Orofacial Pain. From Basic Science to Clinical Management. Chicago: Quintessence, 2001: 235–248.

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