Journal of oral rehabilitation最新文献

Background: Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are musculoskeletal and neuromuscular conditions affecting the temporomandibular joint and associated structures. Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) has emerged as a potential intervention for TMDs, but its comparative effectiveness against standard treatments remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of CBT versus standard treatment interventions in managing TMDs.

Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases using MeSH keywords and Boolean operators. Inclusion criteria encompassed clinical trials comparing CBT/CBT in combination with standard treatment interventions or a control group in individuals with TMDs. The primary outcome measured was pain. Secondary outcomes such as disability, depression and jaw function were also looked into. Two reviewers independently assessed for the eligibility of the articles and conducted data extraction. Quality assessments were performed using RoB 2.0 for randomised clinical trials.

Results: The initial search identified 623 articles, of which a total of eight clinical studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Seven out of eight studies demonstrated improvements in outcomes related to TMD. Pain was significantly decreased in studies that showed a positive outcome. Jaw function, quality of life and psychological well-being were superior among individuals receiving CBT alone or in combination with conventional modalities, as well as hypnotic therapy coupled with CBT-based interventions. The quality of studies assessed showed all articles to be of good quality as per RoB-2 evaluation.

Conclusion: This systematic review highlights the potential benefits of CBT in managing TMDs, suggesting its effectiveness in improving pain outcomes and enhancing overall well-being. The findings indicate that CBT may be a valuable adjunct or alternative to standard treatment interventions for individuals with TMDs. However, further research with larger sample sizes and standardised outcome measures is warranted to establish definitive conclusions regarding the comparative efficacy of CBT versus standard treatments in TMD management.

Background: Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are a prevalent ailment with a global impact, affecting a substantial number of individuals. While some individuals are receiving treatment from orthodontists for TMD, a significant proportion of individuals obtain knowledge through websites.

Objectives: Our purpose had been to evaluate, from a patient-oriented perspective, the readability of home pages of websites scored in the 10 most prominent devoted to TMD. We also determined what level of education would have been needed to get an overview of the information on the websites under scrutiny. This approach ensures that our findings are centred on the patient experience, providing insights into how accessible and understandable websites about TMD.

Methods: We determined the top 10 patient-focused English language websites by searching for 'temporomandibular disorders' in the 'no country redirect' plugin of the Google Chrome browser (www.google.com/ncr). The readability of the texts was assessed using the Gunning fog index (GFI), Coleman Liau index (CLI), Automated readability index (ARI) Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Kincald grade level (FKGL), Flesh reasing ease (FRE) (https://readabilityformulas.com).

Results: The mean Flesch reading ease index score was determined to be 48.67, accompanied by a standard deviation of 15.04 and these websites require an average of 13.49 years of formal education (GFI), with a standard deviation of 2.62, for ease of understanding.

Conclusion: Our research indicates that a significant proportion of websites related to TMD can be defined as a level of complexity that exceeds the ability to read comprehension of the general population.

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.