Effectiveness of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of temporomandibular joint disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.1 3区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of oral rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1111/joor.13807

Mahmud Uz Zaman, Mohammad Khursheed Alam, Nasser Raqe Alqhtani, Mana Alqahtani, Mohammed J Alsaadi, Vincenzo Ronsivalle, Marco Cicciù, Giuseppe Minervini

{"title":"Effectiveness of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of temporomandibular joint disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Mahmud Uz Zaman, Mohammad Khursheed Alam, Nasser Raqe Alqhtani, Mana Alqahtani, Mohammed J Alsaadi, Vincenzo Ronsivalle, Marco Cicciù, Giuseppe Minervini","doi":"10.1111/joor.13807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) pose diagnostic challenges, and selecting appropriate imaging modalities is crucial for accurate assessment. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in identifying TMDs.Methods: A comprehensive meta-analysis was conducted, including studies that compared US and MRI for TMJ disorder assessments. Fixed-effects models were utilized to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-squared test and I2 statistic. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies included.Results: Six studies were included, involving a total of 281 participants. The meta-analysis demonstrated that MRI was statistically somewhat better than US in identifying TMJ disorders. The summary OR was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.46-0.90), and the summary RR was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.68-0.95). Heterogeneity among the studies was low (χ2 = 2.73, df = 5, p = .74; I2 = 0%). Demographic variables revealed variations in sample size, gender ratio and mean age across the studies.Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides evidence that MRI may be more effective than US in diagnosing TMDs. However, the study is limited by the small number of included studies and variations in demographic variables and study designs. Future research with larger samples and standardised protocols is essential to confirm and strengthen these findings. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of MRI and US for TMJ disorders will aid clinicians in making informed decisions for effective TMJ disorder assessments and patient management.","PeriodicalId":16605,"journal":{"name":"Journal of oral rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of oral rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.13807","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) pose diagnostic challenges, and selecting appropriate imaging modalities is crucial for accurate assessment. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in identifying TMDs.

Methods: A comprehensive meta-analysis was conducted, including studies that compared US and MRI for TMJ disorder assessments. Fixed-effects models were utilized to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-squared test and I² statistic. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies included.

Results: Six studies were included, involving a total of 281 participants. The meta-analysis demonstrated that MRI was statistically somewhat better than US in identifying TMJ disorders. The summary OR was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.46-0.90), and the summary RR was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.68-0.95). Heterogeneity among the studies was low (χ² = 2.73, df = 5, p = .74; I² = 0%). Demographic variables revealed variations in sample size, gender ratio and mean age across the studies.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides evidence that MRI may be more effective than US in diagnosing TMDs. However, the study is limited by the small number of included studies and variations in demographic variables and study designs. Future research with larger samples and standardised protocols is essential to confirm and strengthen these findings. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of MRI and US for TMJ disorders will aid clinicians in making informed decisions for effective TMJ disorder assessments and patient management.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

超声波检查在诊断颞下颌关节紊乱中的有效性：系统回顾和荟萃分析。

背景：颞下颌关节紊乱症（TMD）给诊断带来了挑战，而选择适当的成像方式对于准确评估至关重要。本研究旨在比较超声波成像（US）和磁共振成像（MRI）在识别 TMD 方面的诊断准确性和有效性：方法：我们进行了一项全面的荟萃分析，包括比较 US 和 MRI 对颞下颌关节紊乱进行评估的研究。采用固定效应模型计算汇总的几率比（ORs）和相对风险（RRs）及95%置信区间（CIs）。异质性采用卡方检验和 I2 统计量进行评估。纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表用于评估纳入研究的方法学质量：结果：共纳入六项研究，涉及 281 名参与者。荟萃分析表明，在识别颞下颌关节紊乱方面，磁共振成像在统计学上略胜于US。总OR为0.64（95% CI：0.46-0.90），总RR为0.80（95% CI：0.68-0.95）。研究之间的异质性较低（χ2 = 2.73, df = 5, p = .74; I2 = 0%）。人口统计学变量显示，各研究的样本量、性别比例和平均年龄存在差异：这项荟萃分析提供的证据表明，磁共振成像在诊断 TMD 方面可能比 US 更有效。结论：这项荟萃分析提供了磁共振成像在诊断 TMD 方面可能比 US 更有效的证据。然而，由于纳入的研究数量较少，且人口统计学变量和研究设计存在差异，因此该研究存在局限性。未来的研究必须使用更多的样本和标准化的方案来证实和加强这些发现。了解 MRI 和 US 对颞下颌关节紊乱的诊断准确性将有助于临床医生做出明智的决定，从而有效地评估颞下颌关节紊乱和管理患者。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of oral rehabilitation 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

5.60

自引率

10.30%

发文量

116

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： Journal of Oral Rehabilitation aims to be the most prestigious journal of dental research within all aspects of oral rehabilitation and applied oral physiology. It covers all diagnostic and clinical management aspects necessary to re-establish a subjective and objective harmonious oral function. Oral rehabilitation may become necessary as a result of developmental or acquired disturbances in the orofacial region, orofacial traumas, or a variety of dental and oral diseases (primarily dental caries and periodontal diseases) and orofacial pain conditions. As such, oral rehabilitation in the twenty-first century is a matter of skilful diagnosis and minimal, appropriate intervention, the nature of which is intimately linked to a profound knowledge of oral physiology, oral biology, and dental and oral pathology. The scientific content of the journal therefore strives to reflect the best of evidence-based clinical dentistry. Modern clinical management should be based on solid scientific evidence gathered about diagnostic procedures and the properties and efficacy of the chosen intervention (e.g. material science, biological, toxicological, pharmacological or psychological aspects). The content of the journal also reflects documentation of the possible side-effects of rehabilitation, and includes prognostic perspectives of the treatment modalities chosen.