General practice management of TMDs
Introduction Little is known about how effective general dental practitioners (GDPs) are in treating temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The overall aim of this study was to compare the lower stabilising splint (SS) with a non-occluding control (CS) for the management of TMD in general dental practic...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | British dental journal 2004-07, Vol.197 (1), p.31-31 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 31 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 31 |
container_title | British dental journal |
container_volume | 197 |
creator | Radford, J R |
description | Introduction Little is known about how effective general dental practitioners (GDPs) are in treating temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The overall aim of this study was to compare the lower stabilising splint (SS) with a non-occluding control (CS) for the management of TMD in general dental practice.Method A total of 93 TMD patients attending 11 GDPs were randomly allocated to SS or CS. Diagnosis was according to International Headache Society Criteria. Outcome criteria included pain visual analogue scale (VAS), number of tender muscles, aggregate joint tenderness, inter-incisal opening, TMJ clicks and headaches. Splints were fitted one week after baseline and patients were followed-up every three weeks to three months; those not responding to CS after six weeks (< 50% VAS reduction) were crossed over to SS for a further 3 months.Results Documentation was returned from nine GDPs for 72 patients (38 for SS, 34 for CS). At six weeks, mean improvements were noted for all outcome criteria, but less so for clicking. There were no significant differences between splints [χ2 ]. Seventeen CS patients had < 50% VAS reduction and were provided with SS in the cross-over group. CS patients with >50% VAS reduction were significantly younger than CS patients who crossed-over (ANOVA, p=0.009) and had significantly less diagnoses of TMJ clicking (χ2 , p |
doi_str_mv | 10.1038/sj.bdj.4811417 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_216922125</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>983959071</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1747-7f22d2b8273cd7ef272f61938c8a9603054e49a6e8a411e4078d87cfa26e1793</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkD1PwzAURS0EEqWwMkcwJ7xnu37OiAoUpCKW7JbrPKNGzQd2O_DvKWqnuxzdIx0h7hEqBGWfcldt2q7SFlEjXYgZajLlQpG6FDMAoBIMwrW4ybkDQK3BzMTjigdOfldMyYf9NnDR-8F_c8_Dvhhj0Xy-5FtxFf0u891556J5e22W7-X6a_WxfF6XAUlTSVHKVm6sJBVa4ihJRoO1ssH62oCChWZde8PWa0TWQLa1FKKXhpFqNRcPp9spjT8HznvXjYc0HI1OoqmlRLk4QtUJCmnMOXF0U9r2Pv06BPefweXOHTO4cwb1B1S_Ti4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>216922125</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>General practice management of TMDs</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Radford, J R</creator><creatorcontrib>Radford, J R</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction Little is known about how effective general dental practitioners (GDPs) are in treating temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The overall aim of this study was to compare the lower stabilising splint (SS) with a non-occluding control (CS) for the management of TMD in general dental practice.Method A total of 93 TMD patients attending 11 GDPs were randomly allocated to SS or CS. Diagnosis was according to International Headache Society Criteria. Outcome criteria included pain visual analogue scale (VAS), number of tender muscles, aggregate joint tenderness, inter-incisal opening, TMJ clicks and headaches. Splints were fitted one week after baseline and patients were followed-up every three weeks to three months; those not responding to CS after six weeks (< 50% VAS reduction) were crossed over to SS for a further 3 months.Results Documentation was returned from nine GDPs for 72 patients (38 for SS, 34 for CS). At six weeks, mean improvements were noted for all outcome criteria, but less so for clicking. There were no significant differences between splints [χ2 ]. Seventeen CS patients had < 50% VAS reduction and were provided with SS in the cross-over group. CS patients with >50% VAS reduction were significantly younger than CS patients who crossed-over (ANOVA, p=0.009) and had significantly less diagnoses of TMJ clicking (χ2 , p<0.05). At the conclusion of the trial 16 patients were referred for specialist management: 11 non-responders (< 50% VAS reduction), one of whom needed occlusal adjustment and five responders also needing occlusal adjustment.Conclusions At six weeks SS gave similar relief to CS for all out-come criteria. Patients who crossed-over from CS to SS were more likely to be older and have clicking TMJs. At the end of treatment nine of 11 non-responders to SS had a diagnosis of disc displace-ment with reduction. However, 80% TMD patients were managed effectively by GDPs using splints for periods of up to five months.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-0610</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1476-5373</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4811417</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group</publisher><ispartof>British dental journal, 2004-07, Vol.197 (1), p.31-31</ispartof><rights>Copyright Nature Publishing Group Jul 10, 2004</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1747-7f22d2b8273cd7ef272f61938c8a9603054e49a6e8a411e4078d87cfa26e1793</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Radford, J R</creatorcontrib><title>General practice management of TMDs</title><title>British dental journal</title><description>Introduction Little is known about how effective general dental practitioners (GDPs) are in treating temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The overall aim of this study was to compare the lower stabilising splint (SS) with a non-occluding control (CS) for the management of TMD in general dental practice.Method A total of 93 TMD patients attending 11 GDPs were randomly allocated to SS or CS. Diagnosis was according to International Headache Society Criteria. Outcome criteria included pain visual analogue scale (VAS), number of tender muscles, aggregate joint tenderness, inter-incisal opening, TMJ clicks and headaches. Splints were fitted one week after baseline and patients were followed-up every three weeks to three months; those not responding to CS after six weeks (< 50% VAS reduction) were crossed over to SS for a further 3 months.Results Documentation was returned from nine GDPs for 72 patients (38 for SS, 34 for CS). At six weeks, mean improvements were noted for all outcome criteria, but less so for clicking. There were no significant differences between splints [χ2 ]. Seventeen CS patients had < 50% VAS reduction and were provided with SS in the cross-over group. CS patients with >50% VAS reduction were significantly younger than CS patients who crossed-over (ANOVA, p=0.009) and had significantly less diagnoses of TMJ clicking (χ2 , p<0.05). At the conclusion of the trial 16 patients were referred for specialist management: 11 non-responders (< 50% VAS reduction), one of whom needed occlusal adjustment and five responders also needing occlusal adjustment.Conclusions At six weeks SS gave similar relief to CS for all out-come criteria. Patients who crossed-over from CS to SS were more likely to be older and have clicking TMJs. At the end of treatment nine of 11 non-responders to SS had a diagnosis of disc displace-ment with reduction. However, 80% TMD patients were managed effectively by GDPs using splints for periods of up to five months.</description><issn>0007-0610</issn><issn>1476-5373</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNotkD1PwzAURS0EEqWwMkcwJ7xnu37OiAoUpCKW7JbrPKNGzQd2O_DvKWqnuxzdIx0h7hEqBGWfcldt2q7SFlEjXYgZajLlQpG6FDMAoBIMwrW4ybkDQK3BzMTjigdOfldMyYf9NnDR-8F_c8_Dvhhj0Xy-5FtxFf0u891556J5e22W7-X6a_WxfF6XAUlTSVHKVm6sJBVa4ihJRoO1ssH62oCChWZde8PWa0TWQLa1FKKXhpFqNRcPp9spjT8HznvXjYc0HI1OoqmlRLk4QtUJCmnMOXF0U9r2Pv06BPefweXOHTO4cwb1B1S_Ti4</recordid><startdate>20040710</startdate><enddate>20040710</enddate><creator>Radford, J R</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20040710</creationdate><title>General practice management of TMDs</title><author>Radford, J R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1747-7f22d2b8273cd7ef272f61938c8a9603054e49a6e8a411e4078d87cfa26e1793</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Radford, J R</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><jtitle>British dental journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Radford, J R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>General practice management of TMDs</atitle><jtitle>British dental journal</jtitle><date>2004-07-10</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>197</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>31</spage><epage>31</epage><pages>31-31</pages><issn>0007-0610</issn><eissn>1476-5373</eissn><abstract>Introduction Little is known about how effective general dental practitioners (GDPs) are in treating temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The overall aim of this study was to compare the lower stabilising splint (SS) with a non-occluding control (CS) for the management of TMD in general dental practice.Method A total of 93 TMD patients attending 11 GDPs were randomly allocated to SS or CS. Diagnosis was according to International Headache Society Criteria. Outcome criteria included pain visual analogue scale (VAS), number of tender muscles, aggregate joint tenderness, inter-incisal opening, TMJ clicks and headaches. Splints were fitted one week after baseline and patients were followed-up every three weeks to three months; those not responding to CS after six weeks (< 50% VAS reduction) were crossed over to SS for a further 3 months.Results Documentation was returned from nine GDPs for 72 patients (38 for SS, 34 for CS). At six weeks, mean improvements were noted for all outcome criteria, but less so for clicking. There were no significant differences between splints [χ2 ]. Seventeen CS patients had < 50% VAS reduction and were provided with SS in the cross-over group. CS patients with >50% VAS reduction were significantly younger than CS patients who crossed-over (ANOVA, p=0.009) and had significantly less diagnoses of TMJ clicking (χ2 , p<0.05). At the conclusion of the trial 16 patients were referred for specialist management: 11 non-responders (< 50% VAS reduction), one of whom needed occlusal adjustment and five responders also needing occlusal adjustment.Conclusions At six weeks SS gave similar relief to CS for all out-come criteria. Patients who crossed-over from CS to SS were more likely to be older and have clicking TMJs. At the end of treatment nine of 11 non-responders to SS had a diagnosis of disc displace-ment with reduction. However, 80% TMD patients were managed effectively by GDPs using splints for periods of up to five months.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group</pub><doi>10.1038/sj.bdj.4811417</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0007-0610 |
ispartof | British dental journal, 2004-07, Vol.197 (1), p.31-31 |
issn | 0007-0610 1476-5373 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_216922125 |
source | EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
title | General practice management of TMDs |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T10%3A09%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=General%20practice%20management%20of%20TMDs&rft.jtitle=British%20dental%20journal&rft.au=Radford,%20J%20R&rft.date=2004-07-10&rft.volume=197&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=31&rft.epage=31&rft.pages=31-31&rft.issn=0007-0610&rft.eissn=1476-5373&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/sj.bdj.4811417&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E983959071%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=216922125&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |