TMD diagnosis: Sensitivity and specificity of the Fonseca Anamnestic Index

Stasiak, Gabriela; Maracci, Lucas Machado; Chami, Vitória de Oliveira; Pereira, Duziene Denardini; Tomazoni, Fernanda; Silva, Tatiana Bernardon; Ferrazzo, VilmarAntônio; Marquezan, Mariana

doi:10.1080/08869634.2020.1839724

Cited by 31 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…5,11,12,16,31 Subclinical symptoms of TMD have been investigated with FAI, which is used in the early diagnosis and detection of TMD to prevent the progression and early treatment of TMD symptoms, enabling the rapid and accessible collection of large amounts of data at the minimum cost used in many previous studies. 5,19,32,33 Similar to previous studies conducted in various university student populations and reported TMD prevalence between 37-80% 5,[13][14][15][16][17]19,25 , this study, which included only dental assistant program students, also found a high prevalence of TMD (64.8%) compared to the prevalence of TMD absence (35.2%). These results may be due to differences in populations such as genetic structure, physiological differences, sex distribution, or social demographic characteristics, and the anxiety caused by the COVID-19 pandemic at the time of the study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Evaluation of temporomandibular disorder and oral parafunction prevalence in dental assistant students: A cross-sectional descriptive study

Öztürk

Eraslan

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This cross-sectional descriptive study aimed to determine the prevalence of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) and oral parafunctions in dental assistant students and examine the effects of sex and years of education. Materials and Methods: One-hundred five dental assistant students were included in the study. The Fonseca Anamnestic Index (FAI) was used to evaluate the presence of TMD in individuals, and the Oral Habit Checklist (OBC) was used to evaluate oral parafunctions. Results: Sixty-eight individuals (64.8%) had TMD at some level. It was determined that 46 of the females, who constituted the majority of the participants, had mild-TMD, which was significantly different from the males (p<0.001). According to the OBC results, oral parafunctions were associated with TMD, with low-moderate significant correlations (p <0.05). Conclusion: Early diagnosis of temporomandibular joint problems with various questionaries in the university, especially in the young population, is vital in terms of disease prognosis and will prevent future complications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Evaluation of temporomandibular disorder and oral parafunction prevalence in dental assistant students: A cross-sectional descriptive study

Öztürk

Eraslan

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[14][15][16][17] The FAI was also found to accurate and produced consistent outcomes with other TMD screening/ diagnostic instruments including the American Academy of Orofacial Pain Questionnaire and the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMDs (RDC/ TMD). [18][19][20] Recently, it was also confirmed to be reliable for assessing TMD severity. 21 The FAI was used in many studies to determine the presence and severity of TMDs in non-patient populations.…”

Section: Backg Rou N Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As significant differences in psychological distress/OHRQoL were noted among the different TMD severity groups and FAI, DASS-21 and OHIP-TMD scores were correlated, the two null hypotheses were duly discarded. Although the accuracy and the psychometric properties of the FAI are recognised, [14][15][16][17][18][19][20] it may over-estimate the presence of TMDs due to the reporting of non-TMD-specific symptoms (e.g., headache and neck pain) and risk factors. 33 A short-form version of the FAI (SFAI) comprising the five TMD-specific items was introduced lately but has only been validated for muscle disorders in women.…”

Section: Overview and Tmd Symptoms/subtypesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of psychological states and oral health–related quality of life of patients with differing severity of temporomandibular disorders

Yap

Zhang

Cao

et al. 2021

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Studies on temporomandibular disorder (TMD) severity in patient populations are scarce.Objectives: This study sought to compare the psychological states and oral healthrelated quality of life (OHRQoL) among patients with differing TMD severity. Methods: Adult patients (≥18 years old) with and without (controls) TMDs were recruited from the TMD/oro-facial pain centre and prosthodontics department, respectively. The presence and severity of TMDs were established with the Fonseca Anamnestic Index (FAI), and TMD diagnoses were confirmed with the Diagnostic Criteria for TMDs (DC/TMD). Psychological states and OHRQoL were examined with the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) and Oral Health Impact Profile for TMDs (OHIP-TMD). Data were subjected to chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis/Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman's correlation (α = .05).Results: A total of 961 participants with a mean age of 32.99 ± 13.14 years (71.19% women) were assessed. Frequencies of the various TMD categories were as follows:no TMD/controls (12.07%), mild TMD (24.56%), moderate TMD (40.37%) and severe TMD (23.00%). The three most common TMD-related symptoms were TMJ noises, mouth opening difficulty and muscle pain. Participants with moderate/severe TMD presented a higher proportion of intra-articular and/or combined disorders. They reported significantly higher levels of depression, anxiety, stress and poorer OHRQoL than their counterparts with no/mild TMD (p < .001). Moderate-to-strong correlations were observed between FAI and DASS-21/OHIP-TMD scores (rs = 0.42-0.72). Conclusions:Patients with moderate/severe TMD had significantly higher levels of psychological disturbance and poorer OHRQoL. As OHRQoL and psychological states are correlated, psychological well-being must be considered when managing patients with moderate/severe TMDs.

show abstract

“…Therefore, FAI is a questionnaire with a discriminative purpose (detect TMD potential cases). However, the FAI showed a poor specificity performance [45]. A short-form version of the FAI (SFAI), including five questions, was tested and showed the better performance to detect myogenous TMD cases according to RDC/TMD [46] and overall TMD diagnoses according to DC/TMD [47].…”

Section: Short-form Anamnestic Fonseca Index (Sfai)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We just included manuscripts that checked for the measurement properties of the SFAI (short-form) since FAI (long-form) showed poor performance for screening purposes [45].…”

Section: Measurement Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements in Temporomandibular Disorders and Headaches: Summary of Measurement Properties and Applicability

Aguiar

Carrer

Lira

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Several patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are available in the literature to support the evaluation and diagnosis of temporomandibular disorders and headaches. However, clinicians and researchers usually complain that they had no education on PROMs and low overall knowledge about PROMs. Objective: This study aimed to summarize, describing the measurement properties and clinical applicability of the main condition-specific PROMs available in the literature to the assessment of patients with Temporomandibular Disorders and Headaches. Methods: The current manuscript reviewed 10 PROMs commonly used in the field. Four instruments about functioning and disability: 1. Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), 2. Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CF-PDI), 3. 8-item and 20-item Jaw Functional Limitation Scale (JFLS), and 4. Manchester Orofacial Pain Disability Scale (MOPDS). Two instruments about headache-related disability: 5. Headache-Related Disability Index (HDI) and 6. Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6). Three instruments focused on TMD and headache screening: 7. 3Q/TMD, 8. Short-Form Anamnestic Fonseca Index (SFAI), 9. Headache Screening Questionnaire. In addition, one instrument about maladaptive beliefs regarding pain and injury: 10. Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular Disorders (TSK-TMD). Conclusions: The knowledge about the limitations and applicability of the PROMs commonly used to assess TMDs and Headaches can help clinicians and researchers to obtain reliable and valid outcomes to support the decision-making process. The current review recognizes the importance of using patient-reported outcome measures in research and clinical practice. However, our findings call the attention that further studies on the measurement properties of such instruments are imperative.

show abstract

TMD diagnosis: Sensitivity and specificity of the Fonseca Anamnestic Index

Cited by 31 publications

References 19 publications

Evaluation of temporomandibular disorder and oral parafunction prevalence in dental assistant students: A cross-sectional descriptive study

Evaluation of temporomandibular disorder and oral parafunction prevalence in dental assistant students: A cross-sectional descriptive study

Comparison of psychological states and oral health–related quality of life of patients with differing severity of temporomandibular disorders

Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements in Temporomandibular Disorders and Headaches: Summary of Measurement Properties and Applicability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About