Computed tomography of the temporomandibular joint meniscus

Do computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging add to temporomandibular joint disorder treatment? A systematic review of diagnostic efficacy

“…Of the 67 excluded publications (18, 32–97) that had evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of CT and MRI on TMJD but not at the diagnostic thinking and therapeutic level, the majority evaluated diagnostic accuracy efficacy ( n = 62) and were MRI studies ( n = 54) in which the results were described in terms of accuracy, yielding abnormal or normal diagnoses in case series, or evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic methods, and observer performance expressed as overall agreement, kappa index, or correlation coefficients (Table 4).…”

“…The present systematic review showed that the majority of the publications that had evaluated the efficacy of those sectional imaging methods were on MRI ( n = 59/68), (18, 31, 33–36, 45–96). Most of the results were described in terms of accuracy ( n = 22) (37–39, 45–48, 50–52, 55, 57, 62, 63, 66, 67, 69, 74–76, 84, 88) yielding abnormal or normal diagnoses in case series ( n = 17), (40, 41, 43, 44, 49, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 64, 68, 82, 83, 85, 90, 93) and evaluating observer performance expressed as overall agreement, kappa index, or correlation coefficients ( n = 14), (18, 61, 65, 71, 77–81, 86, 87, 91, 92, 94) or, in other words, levels 1 (technical efficacy) and 2 (diagnostic accuracy efficacy) as described by Fryback and Thornbury (10).…”

“…This shows the need for well‐designed studies for analysis of higher levels of efficacy and the correlation between clinical findings and MR findings. In this study, we were careful to assess which studies that evaluated the efficacy of CT and MRI had used clinical criteria for the diagnosis and found that of the 67 studies (18, 32–97), only 17 used diagnostic criteria (18, 42–44, 59, 63, 66–68, 71, 79, 81–83, 88, 89, 91) and less than a half of them (8/17) (18, 79, 81–83, 88, 89, 91) used validated criteria (RDC/TMD) (2).…”

Do computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging add to temporomandibular joint disorder treatment? A systematic review of diagnostic efficacy

“…Of the 67 excluded publications (18, 32–97) that had evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of CT and MRI on TMJD but not at the diagnostic thinking and therapeutic level, the majority evaluated diagnostic accuracy efficacy ( n = 62) and were MRI studies ( n = 54) in which the results were described in terms of accuracy, yielding abnormal or normal diagnoses in case series, or evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic methods, and observer performance expressed as overall agreement, kappa index, or correlation coefficients (Table 4).…”

“…The present systematic review showed that the majority of the publications that had evaluated the efficacy of those sectional imaging methods were on MRI ( n = 59/68), (18, 31, 33–36, 45–96). Most of the results were described in terms of accuracy ( n = 22) (37–39, 45–48, 50–52, 55, 57, 62, 63, 66, 67, 69, 74–76, 84, 88) yielding abnormal or normal diagnoses in case series ( n = 17), (40, 41, 43, 44, 49, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 64, 68, 82, 83, 85, 90, 93) and evaluating observer performance expressed as overall agreement, kappa index, or correlation coefficients ( n = 14), (18, 61, 65, 71, 77–81, 86, 87, 91, 92, 94) or, in other words, levels 1 (technical efficacy) and 2 (diagnostic accuracy efficacy) as described by Fryback and Thornbury (10).…”

“…This shows the need for well‐designed studies for analysis of higher levels of efficacy and the correlation between clinical findings and MR findings. In this study, we were careful to assess which studies that evaluated the efficacy of CT and MRI had used clinical criteria for the diagnosis and found that of the 67 studies (18, 32–97), only 17 used diagnostic criteria (18, 42–44, 59, 63, 66–68, 71, 79, 81–83, 88, 89, 91) and less than a half of them (8/17) (18, 79, 81–83, 88, 89, 91) used validated criteria (RDC/TMD) (2).…”

Osseous Temporomandibular Joint Abnormalities in Rheumatic Disease

“…Most investigations are dealing with the possibilities of CT to demonstrate the disc in patients with internal derangement (disc displacement). Though degenerative changes have been recorded in some of these studies (6,15,16,21,23,26,27), very few comprehensive studies have concentrated on the bony TMJ structures (3,12). Studies on bone abnormalities are mostly case reports, e.g.…”

Computer‐assisted implantology: historical background and potential outcomes—a review

“…One of the major features that draw the dentist's attention to CT technology is the ability to avoid the superimposition of structures, which makes them more desirable than conventional radiography as a morphometric tool. Since its inception, CT has provided quantitative measurements for many different biological systems and has been used in pre-and postsurgical mapping procedures (23), the evaluation of developmental and regressive dental abnormalities (24), facial trauma and temporomandibular joint disorders (25)(26)(27)(28)(29).…”

Do computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging add to temporomandibular joint disorder treatment? A systematic review of diagnostic efficacy

“…Of the 67 excluded publications (18, 32–97) that had evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of CT and MRI on TMJD but not at the diagnostic thinking and therapeutic level, the majority evaluated diagnostic accuracy efficacy ( n = 62) and were MRI studies ( n = 54) in which the results were described in terms of accuracy, yielding abnormal or normal diagnoses in case series, or evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic methods, and observer performance expressed as overall agreement, kappa index, or correlation coefficients (Table 4).…”

“…The present systematic review showed that the majority of the publications that had evaluated the efficacy of those sectional imaging methods were on MRI ( n = 59/68), (18, 31, 33–36, 45–96). Most of the results were described in terms of accuracy ( n = 22) (37–39, 45–48, 50–52, 55, 57, 62, 63, 66, 67, 69, 74–76, 84, 88) yielding abnormal or normal diagnoses in case series ( n = 17), (40, 41, 43, 44, 49, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 64, 68, 82, 83, 85, 90, 93) and evaluating observer performance expressed as overall agreement, kappa index, or correlation coefficients ( n = 14), (18, 61, 65, 71, 77–81, 86, 87, 91, 92, 94) or, in other words, levels 1 (technical efficacy) and 2 (diagnostic accuracy efficacy) as described by Fryback and Thornbury (10).…”

“…This shows the need for well‐designed studies for analysis of higher levels of efficacy and the correlation between clinical findings and MR findings. In this study, we were careful to assess which studies that evaluated the efficacy of CT and MRI had used clinical criteria for the diagnosis and found that of the 67 studies (18, 32–97), only 17 used diagnostic criteria (18, 42–44, 59, 63, 66–68, 71, 79, 81–83, 88, 89, 91) and less than a half of them (8/17) (18, 79, 81–83, 88, 89, 91) used validated criteria (RDC/TMD) (2).…”

Osseous Temporomandibular Joint Abnormalities in Rheumatic Disease

“…Most investigations are dealing with the possibilities of CT to demonstrate the disc in patients with internal derangement (disc displacement). Though degenerative changes have been recorded in some of these studies (6,15,16,21,23,26,27), very few comprehensive studies have concentrated on the bony TMJ structures (3,12). Studies on bone abnormalities are mostly case reports, e.g.…”

Computer‐assisted implantology: historical background and potential outcomes—a review

“…One of the major features that draw the dentist's attention to CT technology is the ability to avoid the superimposition of structures, which makes them more desirable than conventional radiography as a morphometric tool. Since its inception, CT has provided quantitative measurements for many different biological systems and has been used in pre-and postsurgical mapping procedures (23), the evaluation of developmental and regressive dental abnormalities (24), facial trauma and temporomandibular joint disorders (25)(26)(27)(28)(29).…”

Do computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging add to temporomandibular joint disorder treatment? A systematic review of diagnostic efficacy

“…Of the 67 excluded publications (18, 32–97) that had evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of CT and MRI on TMJD but not at the diagnostic thinking and therapeutic level, the majority evaluated diagnostic accuracy efficacy ( n = 62) and were MRI studies ( n = 54) in which the results were described in terms of accuracy, yielding abnormal or normal diagnoses in case series, or evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic methods, and observer performance expressed as overall agreement, kappa index, or correlation coefficients (Table 4).…”

“…The present systematic review showed that the majority of the publications that had evaluated the efficacy of those sectional imaging methods were on MRI ( n = 59/68), (18, 31, 33–36, 45–96). Most of the results were described in terms of accuracy ( n = 22) (37–39, 45–48, 50–52, 55, 57, 62, 63, 66, 67, 69, 74–76, 84, 88) yielding abnormal or normal diagnoses in case series ( n = 17), (40, 41, 43, 44, 49, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 64, 68, 82, 83, 85, 90, 93) and evaluating observer performance expressed as overall agreement, kappa index, or correlation coefficients ( n = 14), (18, 61, 65, 71, 77–81, 86, 87, 91, 92, 94) or, in other words, levels 1 (technical efficacy) and 2 (diagnostic accuracy efficacy) as described by Fryback and Thornbury (10).…”

“…This shows the need for well‐designed studies for analysis of higher levels of efficacy and the correlation between clinical findings and MR findings. In this study, we were careful to assess which studies that evaluated the efficacy of CT and MRI had used clinical criteria for the diagnosis and found that of the 67 studies (18, 32–97), only 17 used diagnostic criteria (18, 42–44, 59, 63, 66–68, 71, 79, 81–83, 88, 89, 91) and less than a half of them (8/17) (18, 79, 81–83, 88, 89, 91) used validated criteria (RDC/TMD) (2).…”

Osseous Temporomandibular Joint Abnormalities in Rheumatic Disease

“…Most investigations are dealing with the possibilities of CT to demonstrate the disc in patients with internal derangement (disc displacement). Though degenerative changes have been recorded in some of these studies (6,15,16,21,23,26,27), very few comprehensive studies have concentrated on the bony TMJ structures (3,12). Studies on bone abnormalities are mostly case reports, e.g.…”

Computer‐assisted implantology: historical background and potential outcomes—a review

“…One of the major features that draw the dentist's attention to CT technology is the ability to avoid the superimposition of structures, which makes them more desirable than conventional radiography as a morphometric tool. Since its inception, CT has provided quantitative measurements for many different biological systems and has been used in pre-and postsurgical mapping procedures (23), the evaluation of developmental and regressive dental abnormalities (24), facial trauma and temporomandibular joint disorders (25)(26)(27)(28)(29).…”