Purpose. We aimed to explore the relationship between temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and craniofacial morphology in orthodontic patients. Methods. Altogether, 262 orthodontic patients were included and divided into two groups according to their Fonseca Anamnestic Index (FAI) scores: a no-TMD group (control group, FAI < 20) and a TMD group (FAI ≥ 20). Cephalometric parameters including cranial, maxillary, mandibular, and dental parameters were traced on cephalograms. Craniofacial morphology was compared between TMD and control groups, followed by subgroup analyses based on TMD severity, gender, age, and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) symptoms. Results. The prevalence of TMDs was 52.7% among included patients (138/262). The mean age of TMD patients was higher than that of the control group. No significant difference in gender distribution between the groups was observed. The most commonly reported FAI items were misaligned teeth, neck pain, and emotional tension. The Frankfort-mandibular plane angle (FMA) was larger in the TMD patients than in the control group, whereas no significant differences in other parameters were observed. Subgroup analysis based on TMD severity revealed that FMA and anterior facial height of moderate/severe TMD patients were significantly larger than those of mild or no-TMD patients. Among male patients, the anterior cranial base length was smaller, and the anterior facial height was larger in the TMD group. Among female patients, no significant differences in craniofacial morphology between the groups were observed. In juvenile patients, overjet and overbite were smaller in the TMD group. In adult patients, SNA, ANB, FMA, and gonial angle were larger in the TMD group. Within the TMD group, patients with TMJ pain or noises exhibited characteristic craniofacial features compared to patients without these symptoms. Conclusions. Orthodontic patients with TMDs have specific craniofacial morphology, suggesting a relationship between TMDs and particular craniofacial features in orthodontic patients.

Objective. To assess the differences in hyoid bone position in patients with and without temporomandibular joint osteoarthrosis (TMJOA). Methods. The present cross-sectional study was conducted in 427 participants whose osseous status was evaluated using cone-beam computed tomography and classified into normal, indeterminate osteoarthrosis (OA), and OA. The hyoid bone position and craniofacial characteristics were evaluated using cephalograms. Patients were divided into the normal group (N = 89), indeterminate OA group (N = 182), and OA group (N = 156). Descriptive statistics, one-way analysis of variance, and age- and sex-based stratified analyses were performed. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results. The differences in Hy to MP, Hy-RGn, Hy to C3-RGn, C3-RGn, and Go-Hy-Me among the three groups were statistically significant. The differences in the Frankfort-mandibular plane angle, saddle angle, articular angle, gonial angle, ramus height, and posterior facial height were statistically significant. After adjusting age and sex, the Hy-RGn and C3-RGn in the normal group were significantly greater than the OA group. No statistical differences were observed in the hyoid measurements in the stratified analyses in males or subjects less than 18 years old. The differences in Hy to MP, Hy to C3-RGn, and Go-Hy-Me in female patients among the three groups were statistically significant. The differences in Hy to SN, Hy to FH, Hy to PP, Hy to MP, Hy-RGn, Hy-C3, Hy to C3-RGn, Go-Hy-Me, Hy-S, and C3-Hy-S in adults were statistically significant. Conclusion. The differences in the hyoid bone position, mainly relative to the mandible, were statistically significant in patients with or without TMJOA. The difference pattern varied among different age and sex groups. Clinical evaluation of the hyoid position must consider the age and sex of patients. Longitudinal studies are required to clarify the causal relationship between TMJOA and hyoid bone position.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the prevalence of different types of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) symptoms in young adults and determine their associations with problematic smartphone use (PSU).MethodsThe data of the study were collected from local university students through an online questionnaire survey. Demographic information, Fonseca Anamnestic Index (FAI), Smartphone Addiction Scale-Short Version (SAS-SV), and Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) responses were gathered electronically and analyzed using multiple logistic regression analysis.ResultsThere were 163 male and 307 female respondents were participated in this study. The prevalence of PSU and TMD were 83.6% and 66.4%, respectively. There was a moderate statistical correlation between PSU and TMD among young adults (r = 0.31, p &lt; 0.01). The logistic regression model revealed that the risk of TMD was 1.77 times higher in people with PSU than in those without PSU (OR = 1.77; 95% CI 1.04–3.06). PSU is a risk factor for pain-related TMD (OR = 1.81; 95% CI 1.08–3.04) but not intra-articular TMD.ConclusionSubjects showed high prevalence of both TMD and PSU. People with PSU experienced more severe and frequent pain-related rather than intra-articular TMD symptoms than those without PSU. By reducing the problematic smartphone use, the risk factor of TMD might be avoided.

Background. It is necessary for dental students and dentists to apply their temporomandibular disorders (TMDs)-related knowledge to clinical practice. The current study aimed to evaluate the knowledge and awareness of postgraduate dental students and practicing dentists regarding etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of TMD in western China and thus provide suggestions on TMD curricula design to get postgraduate students and dentists better prepared for TMD diagnosis and treatment. Methods. This observational and descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among postgraduate students and practicing dentists in western China. Twenty-five reorganized knowledge questions in four domains were selected from the published literature and were evaluated with answer options from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” and “I don’t know.” “Consensus” is defined as more than 50% of respondents in a group agree or disagree with a statement. Chi-square tests were performed for comparisons between the two groups. Results. A total of 132 postgraduate dental students and 123 dentists completed the questionnaire. Around 75% of postgraduate students and 85% of dentists claimed that they have never participated in systematic training in TMD. Nine statements in etiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of TMD had different consensus between the two groups. And the dentist group tended to agree more with 12 statements in the questionnaire. Conclusions. The majority of Chinese dentists and dental students have not taken any TMD courses and possess limited knowledge of TMD. Curriculum reform for predoctoral education, postgraduate education, and continuing education is needed to augment knowledge and skills for TMD diagnosis and treatment.

Purpose. To evaluate head and cervical posture in individuals with or without temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and to assess the correlations between pain, severity of symptoms, and posture. Methods. A total of 384 patients (129 males and 255 females) was included. The Fonseca Anamnestic Index (FAI) was used to assess the severity and prevalence of TMD and the presence of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pain. Patients were divided into three groups: the TMD-free group, TMD without TMJ pain group, and TMD with TMJ pain group. Subsequently, the patients with TMJ pain were further divided into mild TMD and moderate/severe TMD groups. Nine parameters were traced on cephalograms to characterize the head and cervical posture. Results. TMD patients with TMJ pain showed increased forward head posture (FHP) than patients without TMJ pain and TMD-free subjects. No significant difference was observed between the TMD patients without TMJ pain and TMD-free subjects. In the TMD patients with the TMJ pain group, the moderate/severe TMD patients demonstrated increased FHP compared to mild TMD patients. TMD patients with joint pain had greater CVT/RL (B = 3.099), OPT/RL (B = 2.117), and NSL/C2’ (B = 4.646) than the patients without joint pain after adjusting for confounding variables ( P < 0.05 ). Conclusion. TMD patients with TMJ pain showed increased FHP compared to other groups, and FHP became more significant as TMD severity increased in male patients, indicating the FHP might play an important role in the development of TMJ pain. In the clinical assessment of TMD, the patients’ abnormal head and cervical posture might be considered.