Aim The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate importance of TMJ and assessing the prevalence of temporomandibular joint disorders (TMJD) among the general population. Methodology Five main electronic databases and three grey literature were searched to identify observational studies in which TMJD was diagnosed using the research diagnostic criteria (RDC/TMD) or diagnostic criteria (DC/TMD). The studies were blindly selected by two reviewers based on eligibility criteria. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist, and the “R” Statistics software was used to perform meta-analyses. Results From 2741 articles, 21 were included. Ten studies were judged at low RoB, seven at moderate, and four at high. The TMJD investigated were as follows: arthralgia, disk displacement (DDs) with reduction (DDwR), DDwR with intermittent locking, DDs without reduction (DDwoR) with limited opening, DDwoR without limited opening, degenerative joint disease (DJD), osteoarthritis, osteoarthrosis, and subluxation. The main results from prevalence overall meta-analyses for adults/elderly are as follows: TMJD (31.1%), DDs (19.1%), and DJD (9.8%). Furthermore, for children/adolescents are as follows: TMJD (11.3%), DDs (8.3%), and DJD (0.4%). Considering the individual diagnosis meta-analyses, the most prevalent TMJD is DDwR for adults/elderly (25.9%) and children/adolescents (7.4%).
Aim This systematic review aims to analyse and appraise the literature concerning PEEK dental prostheses critically. Methodology The following focused question was constructed ‘Are dental prostheses made of PEEK inferior to those made of other materials in terms of clinical- and patient-reported outcomes?’. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) tool was used for the quality assessment of the randomised clinical trials. Results A total of 12 studies were included in this review. Two case studies received an overall grade of medium and the overall quality of six studies was graded as ‘low’. All three observational studies and the only randomised controlled trial received scores of ‘medium’. Conclusion PEEK-based dental prostheses may provide a viable and more esthetic alternative to conventional prosthodontic appliances. However, within the limitations of this study is the evidence to ascertain the long-term viability of PEEK-based dental prostheses. Future studies should focus on conducting large-scale, multicenter trials to compare the survival rate of PEEK prostheses to that of conventionally available prosthodontic appliances.
Aim: The purpose of the present research was to assess the choice of treatment utilized by orthodontists in class II div.II malocclusion in case of young adults. Methodology: 8 questions were asked to 50 orthodontists during a survey regarding the treatment options in cases of class II div. II. They were asked about various appliances used as well as relapses in relation to these cases. Descriptive statistical analysis was carried out using standard deviation, mean etc. The result was considered statistically significant when p value was <0.05. Results: Around 64.5% of participants faced problems like crowding of the anterior teeth as the major challenge followed by aberrant molar relationships, overbite depth, retroclination of maxillary incisors, and hypodivergent facial pattern of patients. 22 months is the average time the orthodontists (58%) remove the fixed appliances and follow them with retainers. 71% of participants feel that class II div. II relapse much more often as compared to class II div. I cases. 13.6% of orthodontists relied majorly preferred interdental stripping and tooth contouring. Conclusion: Surgical orthodontics is not preferred by the orthodontists in our study and class II div. II cases shows more relapses.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.