Aims The original Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic algorithms have been demonstrated to be reliable. However, the Validation Project determined that the RDC/TMD Axis I validity was below the target sensitivity of ≥ 0.70 and specificity of ≥ 0.95. Consequently, these empirical results supported the development of revised RDC/TMD Axis I diagnostic algorithms that were subsequently demonstrated to be valid for the most common pain-related TMD and for one temporomandibular joint (TMJ) intra-articular disorder. The original RDC/TMD Axis II instruments were shown to be both reliable and valid. Working from these findings and revisions, two international consensus workshops were convened, from which recommendations were obtained for the finalization of new Axis I diagnostic algorithms and new Axis II instruments. Methods Through a series of workshops and symposia, a panel of clinical and basic science pain experts modified the revised RDC/TMD Axis I algorithms by using comprehensive searches of published TMD diagnostic literature followed by review and consensus via a formal structured process. The panel's recommendations for further revision of the Axis I diagnostic algorithms were assessed for validity by using the Validation Project's data set, and for reliability by using newly collected data from the ongoing TMJ Impact Project—the follow-up study to the Validation Project. New Axis II instruments were identified through a comprehensive search of the literature providing valid instruments that, relative to the RDC/TMD, are shorter in length, are available in the public domain, and currently are being used in medical settings. Results The newly recommended Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) Axis I protocol includes both a valid screener for detecting any pain-related TMD as well as valid diagnostic criteria for differentiating the most common pain-related TMD (sensitivity ≥ 0.86, specificity ≥ 0.98) and for one intra-articular disorder (sensitivity of 0.80 and specificity of 0.97). Diagnostic criteria for other common intra-articular disorders lack adequate validity for clinical diagnoses but can be used for screening purposes. Inter-examiner reliability for the clinical assessment associated with the validated DC/TMD criteria for pain-related TMD is excellent (kappa ≥ 0.85). Finally, a comprehensive classification system that includes both the common and less common TMD is also presented. The Axis II protocol retains selected original RDC/TMD screening instruments augmented with new instruments to assess jaw function as well as behavioral and additional psychosocial factors. The Axis II protocol is divided into screening and comprehensive self-report instrument sets. The screening instruments’ 41 questions assess pain intensity, pain-related disability, psychological distress, jaw functional limitations, and parafunctional behaviors, and a pain drawing is used to assess locations of pain. The comprehensive instruments, composed of 81 questions, assess i...

Introduction As a part of a multi-site RDC/TMD Validation Project, comprehensive TMJ diagnostic criteria were developed for image analysis using panoramic radiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT). Methods Inter-examiner reliability was estimated using the kappa (k) statistic, and agreement between rater pairs was characterized by overall, positive, and negative percent agreement. CT was the reference standard for assessing validity of other imaging modalities for detecting osteoarthritis (OA). Results For the radiological diagnosis of OA, reliability of the three examiners was poor for panoramic radiography (k = 0.16), fair for MRI (k = 0.46), and close to the threshold for excellent for CT (k = 0.71). Using MRI, reliability was excellent for diagnosing disc displacements (DD) with reduction (k = 0.78) and for DD without reduction (k = 0.94), and was good for effusion (k = 0.64). Overall percent agreement for pair-wise ratings was ≥ 82% for all conditions. Positive percent agreement for diagnosing OA was 19% for panoramic radiography, 59% for MRI, and 84% for CT. Using MRI, positive percent agreement for diagnoses of any DD was 95% and for effusion was 81%. Negative percent agreement was ≥ 88% for all conditions. Compared to CT, panoramic radiography and MRI had poor to marginal sensitivity, respectively, but excellent specificity, in detecting OA. Conclusion Comprehensive image analysis criteria for RDC/TMD Validation Project were developed, which can reliably be employed for assessing OA using CT, and for disc position and effusion using MRI.

No significant differences were found between subjects in the two groups with respect to implant survival and peri implant bone loss, and patient satisfaction scores continued to be high for both groups. Need for denture maintenance was low in both groups.

No abstract

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes among subjects with mandibular overdentures supported by one or two immediately placed dental implants 5 years after loading. Materials and Methods: Thirty-six subjects (16 men and 20 women) received one or two dental implants in the anterior mandible, and all implants were loaded the day of surgery. Subjects were scheduled for follow-up 3-, 6-, and 12 months after implant placement and thereafter annually for 4 more years. Patient satisfaction scores were measured with the Oral Health Impact Profile-EDENT (OHIP-EDENT) questionnaire. Results: Seventeen subjects (7 male and 10 female) with a mean age of 59.4 years (range, 44 to 74 years) were available for the 5-year follow-up examination. Nine subjects with 10 failing implants were excluded during the first year and nine subjects were lost to follow-up. No implants failed between the 12-and 60-month follow-up examinations, and the need for denture maintenance was low. Mean peri-implant bone change was 0.92 mm, and the Spearman test failed to show correlation between the insertion torque value and implant stability quotient. Patient satisfaction scores increased significantly when compared with baseline values and continued to be high for both groups, with no significant differences. Conclusion: Ten implants in nine subjects failed early, but no failures were observed after the 12-month examination. No significant differences were found between subjects in the two groups with respect to implant survival rates and peri-implant bone loss, and patient satisfaction scores continued to be high. Although patient satisfaction and implant success were high during the 12-to 60-month period, the results should be interpreted with caution because of the high number of failing implants and patients lost to followup. More research is needed to study outcomes of treatment with immediately loaded mandibular implant overdentures.

– In radiographic evaluation of the results of endodontic therapy the development or persistence of periapical radiolucencies often serve as criteria for therapeutic failure. In the present study the influence of inter‐ and intraexaminer variation on these results was investigated. Three endodontists and three radiologists interpreted periapical conditions and quality of root filling seal in radiographs of 119 endodontically treated roots. Consensus on the pretence of periapical lesion was reached in 27% of cases classified as pathologic. In 6% reports of increased width of the periodontal membrane space accorded. The examiners agreed completely on normal periapical conditions in 37% of the cases. On assessing the quality of root filling seal the opinions of observers differed even more. Complete agreement on cases with adequate and defective seal was reached in 25% and 12%, respectively. For the individual examiner the widened periodontal membrane space was the diagnosis most difficult to reproduce. The present study indicates that the large variation noted among clinical and radiographic studies on the results of endodontic therapy could partly be explained by difficulties in defining and maintaining criteria for radiological evidence of periapical disease.

No abstract