Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging for degenerative temporomandibular joint disease

Background Degenerative joint disease (DJD) of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is an important type of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) potentially leading to orofacial pain and jaw dysfunction. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is important in TMD diagnosis; however, its diagnostic ability for D...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of oral rehabilitation 2023-01, Vol.50 (1), p.24-30
Hauptverfasser: Liu, Sha‐sha, Xu, Li‐li, Lu, Shen‐ji, Mao, Meng‐ying, Liu, Li‐kun, Cai, Bin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Degenerative joint disease (DJD) of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is an important type of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) potentially leading to orofacial pain and jaw dysfunction. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is important in TMD diagnosis; however, its diagnostic ability for DJD remains unknown. Objective To explore the utility of MRI in diagnosing DJD according to the latest diagnostic criteria for TMD and detecting condylar bone abnormalities and their severity. Methods Overall, 122 participants were examined using cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) and MRI. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of MRI for detecting DJD and different types of TMJ condylar bone abnormalities were calculated (considering CBCT as gold standard); in addition, we tested MRI and CBCT's consistency in scoring five types of condylar bone abnormalities. Results The sensitivity and specificity of MRI for DJD were 95.3% and 43.1%, respectively. The MRI sensitivities for condylar flattening, erosion, osteophytes, sclerosis and cysts were 98.6%, 96.2%, 79.4%, 50%, and 79.2% (specificity, 53.6%, 48.3%, 81.6%, 83.3%, and 88.2%, respectively), respectively. The consistency between MRI and CBCT in assessing the severity of condylar bone abnormalities was fair‐to‐moderate (kappa coefficient: 0.278–0.491). The inter‐observer consistency for CBCT was good, whereas for MRI, it was relatively poor. Conclusion MRI can detect DJD and condylar bone abnormalities. However, MRI could not efficiently detect the severity of condylar bone abnormalities. MRI can detect DJD and condylar bone abnormalities. However, MRI could not efficiently detect the severity of condylar bone abnormalities.
ISSN:0305-182X
1365-2842
DOI:10.1111/joor.13386