肌位He板对颅颌功能紊乱症状的治疗作用研究

目的：探讨肌位Ｈｅ板对颅颌功能紊乱（ＣＭＤ）症状与体征的治疗作用。方法：对１０５例确诊为ＣＭＤ者,夜间戴用肌位Ｈｅ板３－６个月,咬合板使前牙平均加高２．６±０．８ｍｍ。结果：颅颌功能恢复正常者５４例,占５１．４％,颅颌功能好转４８例,占４５．７％,无效者３例,占２．９％,肌位Ｈｅ板对疼痛的缓解率最高,２周内达９０％,弹响是最难消除的症状,其中盘突关系正常者,可复性盘前移位者,不可复性盘前移位者临床     

咬合板对颞颌关节内压影响的实验研究

目的　探讨咬合板对颞颌关节（ Ｔ Ｍ Ｊ） 内压力（ Ｉ Ａ Ｐ） 的影响。方法　采用多道生理记录仪分别测量戴板前及戴入咬合板后，紧咬状态下３ 只成年家犬的 Ｔ Ｍ Ｊ上腔内压力。结果　戴板前紧咬时关节上腔内压力为６ ．４ Ｋｐａ±１ ．５ Ｋｐａ ，戴入咬合板后紧咬时为０ ．６ Ｋｐａ ±０ ．２ Ｋｐａ，两者有显著差异（ Ｐ＜ ０ ．０１） 。结论　咬合板对颅颌功能紊乱者的治疗机理之一是对 Ｔ Ｍ Ｊ内压异常增高者降低关节内压，从而发挥治疗作用     

肌位咬合板对颅颌功能紊乱者咀嚼肌肌电图的影响

目的：研究肌位咬合板对颅颌功能紊乱（ Ｃ Ｍ Ｄ）患者咀嚼肌肌电的影响,探讨其作用机理。方法：采用美国 Ｅ Ｍ２ 型肌电仪记录１０２ 例患者带咬合板前后的姿势位（ Ｍ Ｐ Ｐ）及牙尖交错位（ Ｉ Ｃ Ｐ）最大紧咬时的肌电变化。结果：（１）即刻戴入咬合板后颞肌前束（ Ｔ Ａ）与嚼肌（ Ｍ Ｍ）的 Ｍ Ｐ Ｐ高电位明显降低（ Ｐ＜ ０．０５）;治疗后不戴咬合板复查, Ｔ Ａ、颞肌后束（ Ｔ Ｐ）和 Ｍ Ｍ 肌紧张缓解。（２）戴咬合板紧咬双侧 Ｔ Ａ、 Ｔ Ｐ 和 Ｍ Ｍ 的肌电活动显著减小（ Ｐ＜ ０．０５）, Ｍ Ｍ 的肌电活动对称性明显提高（ Ｐ＜ ０．０５）,活动指数显著增加（ Ｐ＜０．０５）。结论：肌位咬合板能明显降低升颌肌最大紧咬的肌电活动,提高嚼肌的肌电活动对称性及活动指数。     

抗抑郁剂在封闭治疗颞下颌关节紊乱综合征中的作用

用三环类抗抑郁剂多虑平加痛点封闭治疗ＴＭＪＤＳ８１例和单纯痛点封闭５３例。疼痛缓解率前者（８２．７％）明显高于后者（Ｐ＜０．０５）。认为抗抑郁剂有明显缓解疼痛作用．用抑郁自评量表（ＳＤＳ）评定结果，ＴＭＪＤＳ病者伴抑郁症状发生率（７３．５％），显著高于正常对照组（Ｐ＜０．０１），表明ＴＭＪＤＳ疼痛与抑郁症状关系密切。抑郁剂是通过改善抑郁症状，提高机体５—ＨＴ水平而缓解疼痛。提示三环类抗抑郁剂多虑平可作为缓解ＴＭＪＤＳ疼痛和改善精神状态的有效辅助治疗药物。     

封闭疗法结合咬合板治疗颞下颌关节紊乱综合征器质性破坏类的临床观察

采用封闭疗法结合咬合板治疗颞下颌关节紊乱综合征器质性破坏类患者５２例，男１２例，女４０例，年龄１４～７３岁，平均４０岁。关节下腔注射地塞米松和利多卡因混合液，根据病因选用前方调位咬合板或稳定型咬合板，治疗６个月后显效４６例（８８．５％）、有效６例（１１．５％），Ｘ经片示原骨质破坏处有修复出现，认为封闭与咬合板相结合是针对症状和病因的综合治疗方法，该方法治疗效果明显，无不良反应，有普及应用价值。     

封闭疗法结合咬合板治疗颞下颌关节紊乱综合征器质性破坏类的…

采用封闭疗法结合咬合板治疗颞下颌产节紊乱综合征器质性破坏类患者５２例，男１２例，女４０例，年龄１４～７３岁，平均４０岁，关节下腔注射了塞米松和利多卡因混合液，根据病因选用前方调位咬合板或稳定型咬合板，治疗６个月后显效４６例（８８．５％）有效６例（１１．５％）Ｘ线示原骨质破坏处有修复出现，认为封闭与咬合板相结合是针对症状和病因的综合治疗方法，该方法治疗效果明显，无不良反应，有普及应用价值。     

抗抑郁剂在封闭治疗颞下颌关节紊乱综合征中的作用

用三环类抗抑郁剂多虑平加痛点封闭治疗ＴＭＪＤＳ８１例和单纯痛点封闭５３例。疼痛缓解率前者（８２．７％）明显高于后者（Ｐ＜０．０５）。认为抗抑郁剂有明显缓解疼痛作用。用抑郁自评量表（ＳＤＳ）评定结果，ＴＭＪＤＳ病者伴抑郁症状发生率（７３．５％），显著高于正常对照组（Ｐ＜０．０１），表明ＴＭＪＤＳ疼痛与抑郁症状关系密切。抑郁剂是通过改善抑郁症状，提高机体５－ＨＴ水平而缓解疼痛。提示三环类抗抑郁剂多虑平     

尖牙高型咬合板治疗磨牙症的临床研究(附210例报告)

采用尖牙高型咬合板治疗磨牙症２１０例，男１２１例，女８９例，年龄１２～６５岁，平均２７．９岁，疗程１～３年，平均１５个月。结果所有患者的磨牙症状均得到了有效的控制，磨动的幅度和磨损程度逐渐减小，１１６人治愈（５５．２％）、５９人显效（２８．１％）、３５人有效（１６．７％）。讨论了磨牙症的病因和尖牙高型咬合板治疗磨牙症的机理，认为该咬合板设计科学、制作简单、戴用方便、效果明显，有推广应用价值。     

稳定型咬He板治疗颞下颌关节紊乱病疼痛的疗效观察

作者应用稳定型咬Ｈｅ板治疗３０２名颞下在节紊乱病（ＴＭＤ）患者（其中２０７人单侧，９５人双侧，总共３９７例）。疗法对ＴＭＤ疼痛的总有效率为８０．５％，对肌、颞肌、翼外肌疼痛的平均总有效率为８６．１％。认为稳定型咬Ｈｅ板通过阻断Ｈｅ干扰的激惹因素，缓解肌痉挛，从而解除疼痛。它对治疗颞下凳关节紊乱病肌功能紊乱所造成的疼痛具有较好的疗效。     

缺牙病人颞颌关节紊乱综合征的修复治疗

颞颌关节紊乱综合征（ＴＭＪＤＳ）的病因虽然复杂,但紊乱与咬合关系障碍是其主要原因,已逐渐被多数学者认可．因此在检查、治疗ＴＭＪＤＳ病人时,都离不开对与咬合的重点检查及对其的治疗调整．作者近几年对３２例因缺牙引起紊乱而导致的ＴＭＪＤＳ病人,采取正...     

Prevalence of signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders in an urban and rural German population: results of a population-based Study of Health in Pomerania.

OBJECTIVE: Based on a randomized, population study (Study of Health in Pomerania [SHIP]), the objective of the present study was to determine incidence of signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) in adults 20 years or older and to compare the data with TMD prevalence of other exclusively random sample studies that fulfilled criteria similar to those of this study (age > or = 20 years, age range > or = 40 years, sample size > or = 500 subjects, equal gender distribution). METHOD AND MATERIALS: Men and women (n = 7,008) 20 to 79 years of age from mid- and small-sized towns in a rural region in northeast Germany were randomly sampled from resident registry office files. The response rate was 68.8%. Adults between the ages of 20 and 81 years (n = 4,289) were clinically and anamnestically examined. RESULTS: Half of the subjects (49.9%) had one or more clinical signs of TMD, but only 2.7% were subjectively aware of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pain symptoms. Women showed higher frequency for all signs and symptoms of TMD than men. However, these differences were not significant for all signs and symptoms in all age groups. The influence of age on TMD signs and symptoms was less pronounced. The prevalence for the following variables found in the present study compared to those of other comparable, random sample studies was: clinical examination; (TMJ) tenderness to palpation (5% versus 2% to 6%); masticatory muscle tenderness (15% versus 19% to 21%); joint sounds (25% versus 15% to 25%); limited maximum mouth opening < 40 mm (9% versus 5% to 8%); pain upon movement of the mandible (1% versus 1% to 3%); irregular jaw movements (deviation, deflection) (28% versus 28%); interview: subjective joint sounds (9% versus 11% to 13%); and subjective TMJ pain (3% versus 4% to 7%). CONCLUSION: The TMD incidence in the current study agreed quite well with the other studies based on random samples with similar subjects and design. The large range of prevalence for signs and symptoms of TMD documented in reviews and meta-analyses could therefore not be confirmed.     

Comparison of clinical findings and psychosocial factors in patients with atypical odontalgia and temporomandibular disorders

AIMS: To systematically compare clinical findings and psychosocial factors between patients suffering from atypical odontalgia (AO) and an age- and gender-matched group of patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). METHODS: Forty-six AO patients (7 men and 39 women; mean age, 56 years) were compared with 41 TMD patients (8 men and 33 women; mean age, 58 years). RESULTS: Mean pain intensity at the time of inclusion in the study was similar between the groups (TMD: 5.3 +/- 0.4, AO: 5.0 +/- 0.3), but pain duration was longer in AO patients (AO: 7.7 +/- 1.1 years, TMD: 4.5 +/- 0.1 years). Eighty-three percent of the AO patients and 15% of TMD patients reported pain onset in relation to dental/surgical procedures. Episodic tension-type headache (TTH) occurred equally in both groups (TMD: 46%, AO: 46%), but TMD patients more frequently experienced chronic TTH (TMD: 35%, AO: 18%), myofascial TMD (TMD: 93%, AO: 50%), and temporomandibular joint disorders (TMD: 66%, AO: 2%). Overall, TMD patients had lower pressure pain thresholds and poorer jaw function than AO patients. Mean depression and somatization scores were moderate to severe in both groups, and widespread pain was most common in TMD patients. CONCLUSION: AO and TMD share some characteristics but differ significantly in report of dental trauma, jaw function, pain duration, and pain site.     

Depression and somatization in patients with temporomandibular disorders

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Psychological and behavioral traits may be important for the diagnosis and management of orofacial pain. PURPOSE: This study compared the levels of depression and somatization in patients in single and multiple research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (RDC/TMD) diagnostic groups. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The RDC/TMD was established to allow standardization and replication of research into the most common forms of muscle- and joint-related research and is divided into 2 axes: axis I, clinical TMD, and axis II, pain-related disability and psychological status. One hundred seventeen patients (28 male and 89 female; mean age, 33.3 +/- 10.3 years) with RDC/TMD-defined clinical TMD were selected. The RDC/TMD history questionnaire and examination forms were input directly into computers with the use of a software program developed at the National University of Singapore (NUS TMDv1.1 software). Axis I and II variables were generated online and automatically archived for statistical analysis. Patients were subsequently classified into 7 groups based on the presence of the various RDC/TMD axis I diagnostic groups: group A, myofascial pain only (group I); group B, disk displacement only (group II); group C, other joint conditions such as arthralgia, osteoarthritis, and osteoarthrosis only (group III); group D, myofascial pain and disk displacement (groups I and II); group E, myofascial pain and other joint conditions (groups I and III); group F, disk displacement and other joint conditions (groups II and III); and group G, myofascial pain, disk displacement, and other joint conditions (groups I, II, and III). Differences in mean Symptom Checklist-90 scores between groups were compared by analysis of variance/Scheffé tests to contrast depression and somatization levels between the various axis I diagnostic groups (alpha=.05). RESULTS: The frequencies of the different groups were as follows: group A, 26.5%; group B, 29.9%; group C, 12.8%; group D, 6.0%; group E, 13.7%; group F, 4.3%; and group G, 6.8%. Approximately 39% of patients were clinically depressed, and 55% had moderate to severe somatization. Differences in mean depression and somatization with pain item scores were significant between groups (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, patients diagnosed with myofascial pain and other joint conditions (group E) had significantly higher levels of depression (P=.03) and somatization (P=.03) than patients diagnosed with only disk displacements (group B).     

Treatment received, treatment demand and treatment need for temporomandibular disorders in 35-year-old subjects

Especially in the last 10 years the aetiological significance of occlusion for TMD was relativated and the search for other alternative therapeutic strategies was intensified. For the treatment of myogenous and arthrogenous problems in TMD different kinds of physiotherapy are reported. Our intention of the present pilot study was focused on patients' perception of efficiency of different physiotherapeutic modalities and in relation to splint therapy.
A total of 187 patients of the TMD clinic in Düsseldorf were retrospectively asked to fill out a questionnaire with topics on physiotherapeutic home training programme (HTP), on professional physiotherapy (PP), on splint therapy (ST) and overall assessment of treatment effort (OATE). Eighty-one questionnaires could be analysed and evaluated in relation to three diagnostic TMD subgroups (myogenous, arthrogenous and mixed).
The HTP was positively assessed in 74%, PP in 70% and ST only in 38%. Fifty-one per cent of patients could realize HTP regularly per day, 86% of patients could realise PP regularly per week. The majority of patients felt improvement after some weeks/months of HTP resp. PP. No significant relation could be detected between TMD subgroups and patients'assessment to HTP, PP, ST and OATE.
Based on patients' assessment the results indicate that physiotherapeutic treatment modalities are highly efficient, whereas a differentiation between mentioned TMD subgroups does not seem to exist. A minority of patients (c. 20–25% of clinical cases) does not respond to dental-occlusal and physiotherapeutic therapy very well. Therefore, a multidisciplinary psychosocial-based treatment approach might be useful in these cases.     

Incidence and temporal patterns of temporomandibular disorder pain among Swedish adolescents

AIMS: To estimate the incidence of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain among Swedish adolescents by age and gender and to describe the temporal patterns of TMD pain. METHODS: This 3-year longitudinal study was carried out at all Public Dental Service clinics in a Swedish county from 2000 to 2003. All individuals aged 12 to 19 years in the county who visited the clinics for annual examinations were eligible for the study. RESULTS: Overall, the incidence of TMD pain among all adolescents was 2.9% annually among 2,255 participating adolescents. Incidence among girls was significantly higher than in boys, 4.5% versus 1.3%, respectively. Incidence increased with age in girls and boys, although less so in boys (3.0% to 6.9% versus 1.7% to 2.6%). These adolescents were re-examined annually for 3 years, and a fluctuating pattern of TMD pain was common. Overall, 11.4% of all subjects reported TMD pain on at least 1 occasion; 88.6% of the cohort remained pain-free. Of those reporting TMD pain, 4.7% could be defined as intermittent cases, 3.1% were single-incident cases, 0.9% were recurrent cases, and 0.9% had continuing pain for 1 or 2 years. CONCLUSION: The incidence of self-reported TMD pain among Swedish adolescents aged 12 to 19 years increased with age, particularly among girls. The pattern of pain in most adolescents fluctuated over time. Less than 1% of the cohort had continued pain over each year, and the majority of these subjects were girls.     

垫式可摘局部义齿修复TMD患者牙列缺损的探讨

目的:观察牙列缺损伴有颞下颌关节症状的老年患者采用垫式可摘局部义齿修复的临床效果。方法:对79例牙列缺损、余留牙重度磨耗、低位咬合同时伴有颞下颌关节症状的老年患者,采用垫式可摘局部义齿修复,并作半年、1 年、3年追踪复查。检查项目为咀嚼功能与颞下颌关节改善情况。结果:有效率分别为98.73%、100%、93.67%,修复效果令人满意。结论:采用垫式可摘局部义齿在恢复缺失牙功能的同时,能有效缓解颞下颌关节症状,改善面容,提高咀嚼功能,固定松动牙,防止食物嵌塞。     

Profiling of Patients with Temporomandibular Disorders: Experience of One Tertiary Care Center

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess typical and most prevalent characteristics of patients suffering from temporomandibular disorders (TMD) by a retrospective assessment of their medical records.Material and MethodsDemographic data and data on the characteristics of TMD were collected from the existing medical documentation of 304 TMD patients (250 females and 54 males) who had been referred to the Department of Dentistry, Clinical Hospital Center Zagreb from October 2016 to October 2020 due to temporomandibular pain. For the purpose of analysis, three age groups were formed: i) “children and adolescents” (up to 19 years of age); ii) “middle age” (from 20 to 50 years of age); iii) “older age” (>50 year- olds). A two-step cluster analysis was performed with the aim of classifying TMD patients into homogenous groups.ResultsThe mean age of patients whose data were included in the study was 33.8 ± 16.66, with a significantly higher age in the group of women (p<0.001). Most of the patients had chronic pain (67.4%), with the ratio in favor of chronic patients being significantly higher in women than in men (p=0.001). Data on parafunctional behavior were confirmed in 14.5% of patients. Data on the onset of symptoms during/just after orthodontic treatment were present in 14.5% of patients. Data on spontaneous pain, assessed with a visual analogue scale, were recorded in 87 patients, with a mean of 6.14 ± 1.79 and with the highest pain in the “older age” group. Physical therapy was the most common therapeutic modality (56.3%) followed by an occlusal splint (40.5%). The analysis revealed 5 different clusters in the TMD patient data set.ConclusionsOur results are largely in line with current epidemiological knowledge on TMD. Women predominated in all age groups and most of the patients experienced chronic pain. Classifying patients into homogeneous groups using the clustering method could provide better identification of subgroups of conditions that mainly occur together in these patients, thus providing the basis for more specific management.     

Clinical TMD, pain-related disability and psychological status of TMD patients

This study investigated the clinical temporomandibular disorders (TMD), pain-related disability and psychological status of TMD patients using a computerized on-line TMD diagnostic system (NUS TMD v1.1). A total of 107 patients (32 male, 75 female) referred to the TMD clinics at the National Dental Centre and National University Hospital participated in this study. The mean age of the predominantly Chinese population (82.2%) was 30.8 years (range from 12 to 64 years). The history questionnaire and clinical examination were input directly into computers by patients and clinicians. A 'Summary of Findings' was then immediately generated by the program based on Axis I and II rules. The data was subsequently exported to SPSS for statistical analysis. About 20.6% of the patients had myofascial pain but only 7.5% experienced limited mandibular opening associated with myofascial pain. The majority of patients (> 80%) did not suffer from disc displacements (right and left joints). The frequency of arthralgia was also low (right joint 8.4%; left joint 7.5%) and only one patient had osteoarthosis of the TMJ. About 78.5% of the patients had low disability with almost equal distribution between low and high intensity pain, 27.1% of the patients were moderately depressed and 11.2% had severe depression. No significant difference in limitations related mandibular functioning scores was observed between normal/depressed patients and between patients with the different graded chronic pain severity classification. The three most frequent jaw disabilities were: eating hard foods (77.6%), yawning (75.7%) and chewing (64.5%). NUS TMD v1.1 is an extremely useful tool in the diagnosis/research of clinical TMD.     

Prevalence of temporomandibular disorders in patients seeking orthodontic treatment: A systematic review

The objective of this systematic review was (a) to establish the prevalence of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) in patients seeking orthodontic treatment and (b) to determine the association between the presence of TMD and sex, age and malocclusion. A systematic literature search was performed according to PRISMA guidelines from 1969 to 2019 using the PubMed and LIVIVO databases. Eight study articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. An additional three contributions were identified through manual searching of the reference lists of retrieved articles. The methodological quality of the 11 articles was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for prevalence studies. TMD prevalence ranged from 21.1% to 73.3%. The frequency of painful TMD signs/symptoms varied from 3.4% to 65.7%, while non-painful signs/symptoms ranged from 3.1% to 40.8%. The percentage of males and females presenting with TMD varied from 10.6% to 68.1% and 21.2 to 72.4%, respectively. In all studies, TMD prevalence was higher among females. The majority of articles reported more TMD signs/symptoms in individuals older than 18 years as compared to younger ones (≤18 years). While in four studies no association between TMD and malocclusion was found, another three investigations indicated that TMD may be related to certain occlusal traits. The TMD prevalence in patients seeking orthodontic treatment was high, with many individuals presenting painful TMD signs/symptoms. Female and older patients appear to have a greater occurrence of TMD. Although no strong association between TMD and malocclusion was established, several occlusal traits were implicated.