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...

Background Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) is an umbrella term for pain and dysfunction involving the masticatory muscles and the temporomandibular joints (TMJs). TMD is the most common orofacial pain condition. Its prominent features include regional pain in the face and preauricular area, limitations in jaw movement, and noise from the TMJs during jaw movements. TMD affects up to 15% of adults and 7% of adolescents. Chronic pain is the overwhelming reason that patients with TMD seek treatment. TMD can associate with impaired general health, depression, and other psychological disabilities, and may affect the quality of life of the patient. Assessment Evaluations indicate that the recently published Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) are reliable and valid. These criteria cover the most common types of TMD, which include pain-related disorders (e.g., myalgia, headache attributable to TMD, and arthralgia) as well as disorders associated with the TMJ (primarily disc displacements and degenerative disease). As peripheral mechanisms most likely play a role in the onset of TMD, a detailed muscle examination is recommended. The persistence of pain involves more central factors, such as sensitization of the supraspinal neurons and second-order neurons at the level of the spinal dorsal horn/trigeminal nucleus, imbalanced antinociceptive activity, and strong genetic predisposition, which also is included in DC/TMD. Conclusion The etiology is complex and still not clearly understood, but several biological and psychosocial risk factors for TMD have been identified. Several studies indicate that patients with TMD improve with a combination of noninvasive therapies, including behavior therapy, pharmacotherapy, physical therapy, and occlusal appliances. More stringently designed studies, however, are needed to assess treatment efficacy and how to tailor treatment to the individual patient.

This systematic review (SR) synthesises recent evidence and assesses the methodological quality of published SRs in the management of temporomandibular disorders (TMD). A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Bandolier databases for 1987 to September 2009. Two investigators evaluated the methodological quality of each identified SR using two measurement tools: the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and level of research design scoring. Thirty-eight SRs met inclusion criteria and 30 were analysed: 23 qualitative SRs and seven meta-analyses. Ten SRs were related to occlusal appliances, occlusal adjustment or bruxism; eight to physical therapy; seven to pharmacologic treatment; four to TMJ and maxillofacial surgery; and six to behavioural therapy and multimodal treatment. The median AMSTAR score was 6 (range 2-11). Eighteen of the SRs were based on randomised clinical trials (RCTs), three were based on case-control studies, and nine were a mix of RCTs and case series. Most SRs had pain and clinical measures as primary outcome variables, while few SRs reported psychological status, daily activities, or quality of life. There is some evidence that the following can be effective in alleviating TMD pain: occlusal appliances, acupuncture, behavioural therapy, jaw exercises, postural training, and some pharmacological treatments. Evidence for the effect of electrophysical modalities and surgery is insufficient, and occlusal adjustment seems to have no effect. One limitation of most of the reviewed SRs was that the considerable variation in methodology between the primary studies made definitive conclusions impossible.

The German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS) has recommended a protocol with 13 quantitative sensory testing (QST) measures for detecting somatosensory abnormalities. Reliability is an important scientific property and has been adequately tested for cutaneous QST. This study evaluates intraoral sites for which no reliability trials have yet been published. Inter- and intra-examiner reliability of 13 QST measures at intra- and extraoral trigeminal sites were investigated. Twenty-one healthy volunteers from Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden (13 women and 8 men, mean age 40.4 years, range 24-71) participated. Two independent examiners previously trained in the DFNS QST protocol examined the participants using the entire protocol. Each participant was examined twice on the same day, once by each examiner (inter-examiner reliability). After 1-3 weeks, one examiner re-examined all participants (intra-examiner reliability). The measurements were made on the skin of the right cheek, the tip of the tongue, and bilaterally on the gingival mucosa of the upper premolar region. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) or kappa was used to calculate variations. Most tests had acceptable to excellent inter-examiner (ICC 0.41-0.89) and intra-examiner (ICC 0.43-0.87) reliability. For each test, inter- and intra-examiner reliabilities at intra- and extraoral sites were similar. No significant differences between right and left sides were found intraorally. We conclude that inter- and intra-examiner reliabilities of most QST measures are acceptable for assessing somatosensory function in the orofacial region.

Background There is a need to expand the current temporomandibular disorder (TMD) classification to include less common, but clinically important disorders. The immediate aim was to develop a consensus-based classification system and associated diagnostic criteria that have clinical and research utility for less common TMDs. The long-term aim was to establish a foundation, vis-à-vis this classification system, that will stimulate data collection, validity testing, and further criteria refinement. Methods A working group [members of the International RDC/TMD Consortium Network of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), members of the Orofacial Pain Special Interest Group (SIG) of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), and members from other professional societies] reviewed disorders for inclusion based on clinical significance, the availability of plausible diagnostic criteria, and the ability to operationalize and study the criteria. The disorders were derived from the literature when possible and based on expert opinion as necessary. The expanded TMD taxonomy was presented for feedback at international meetings. Results Of 56 disorders considered, 37 were included in the expanded taxonomy and were placed into the following four categories: temporomandibular joint disorders, masticatory muscle disorders, headache disorders, and disorders affecting associated structures. Those excluded were extremely uncommon, lacking operationalized diagnostic criteria, not clearly related to TMDs, or not sufficiently distinct from disorders already included within the taxonomy. Conclusions The expanded TMD taxonomy offers an integrated approach to clinical diagnosis and provides a framework for further research to operationalize and test the proposed taxonomy and diagnostic criteria.

Summary The goals of an international taskforce on somatosensory testing established by the Special Interest Group of Oro-facial Pain (SIG-OFP) under the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) were to (i) review the literature concerning assessment of somatosensory function in the oro-facial region in terms of techniques and test performance, (ii) provide guidelines for comprehensive and screening examination procedures, and (iii) give recommendations for future development of somatosensory testing specifically in the oro-facial region. Numerous qualitative and quantitative psychophysical techniques have been proposed and used in the description of oro-facial somatosensory function. The selection of technique includes time considerations because the most reliable and accurate methods require multiple repetitions of stimuli. Multiple-stimulus modalities (mechanical, thermal, electrical, chemical) have been applied to study oro-facial somatosensory function. A battery of different test stimuli is needed to obtain comprehensive information about the functional integrity of the various types of afferent nerve fibres. Based on the available literature, the German Neuropathic Pain Network test battery appears suitable for the study of somatosensory function within the oro-facial area as it is based on a wide variety of both qualitative and quantitative assessments of all cutaneous somatosensory modalities. Furthermore, these protocols have been thoroughly described and tested on multiple sites including the facial skin and intra-oral mucosa. Standardisation of both comprehensive and screening examination techniques is likely to improve the diagnostic accuracy and facilitate the understanding of neural mechanisms and somatosensory changes in different oro-facial pain conditions and may help to guide management. assessments of all cutaneous somatosensory modalities. Furthermore, these protocols have been thoroughly described and tested on multiple sites including the facial skin and intraoral mucosa.Standardization of both comprehensive and screening examination techniques is likely to improve the diagnostic accuracy and facilitate the understanding of neural mechanisms and somatosensory changes in different orofacial pain conditions and may help to guide management.

Intraoral somatosensory sensitivity in patients with atypical odontalgia (AO) has not been investigated systematically according to the most recent guidelines. The aims of this study were to: 1. Examine intraoral somatosensory disturbances in AO patients using healthy subjects as reference and 2. Evaluate the percent agreement between intraoral quantitative sensory testing (QST) and qualitative sensory testing (QualST). Forty-seven AO patients and 69 healthy controls were included at Universities of Washington, Malmö and Aarhus. In AO patients, intraoral somatosensory testing was performed on the painful site, the corresponding contralateral site and at thenar. In healthy subjects, intraoral somatosensory testing was performed bilaterally on the upper premolar gingiva and at thenar. Thirteen QST and 3 QualST parameters were evaluated at each site, z-scores were computed for AO patients based on the healthy reference material and LossGain scores were created. 87.3% of AO patients had QST abnormalities compared with controls. The most frequent somatosensory abnormalities in AO patients were somatosensory gain with regard to painful mechanical and cold stimuli and somatosensory loss with regard to cold detection and mechanical detection. The most frequent LossGain code was L0G2 (no somatosensory loss with gain of mechanical somatosensory function)(31.9% of AO patients). Percent agreement between corresponding QST and QualST measures of thermal and mechanical sensitivity ranged between 55.6 and 70.4% in AO patients and between 71.1 and 92.1% in controls. In conclusion, intraoral somatosensory abnormalities were commonly detected in AO patients and agreement between quantitative and qualitative sensory testing was good to excellent.

Evidence of an effect by botulinum toxins is still lacking for most pain conditions. In the present randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover multicenter study, the efficacy of botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) was investigated in patients with persistent myofascial temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Twenty-one patients with myofascial TMD without adequate pain relief after conventional treatment participated. A total of 50 U of BTX-A or isotonic saline (control) was randomly injected into 3 standardized sites of the painful masseter muscles. Follow-up was performed after 1 and 3 months, followed by a 1-month washout period, after which crossover occurred. Pain intensity at rest was the primary outcome measure, while physical and emotional function, global improvement, side effects, and clinical measures were additional outcome measures. There was no main difference between drugs (ANOVA; P=.163), but there was a significant time effect (P<.001), so BTX-A reduced mean (SD) percent change of pain intensity by 30 (33%) after 1 month and by 23 (30%) after 3 months compared to 11 (40%) and 4 (33%) for saline. The number of patients who received a 30% pain reduction was not significantly larger for BTX-A than after saline at any follow-up visit. The number needed to treat was 11 after 1 month and 7 after 3 months. There were no significant changes after treatment in any other outcome measures, with the exception of pain on palpation, which decreased 3 months after saline injection (P<.05). These results do not indicate a clinical relevant effect of BTX-A in patients with persistent myofascial TMD pain.