Aims The original Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic algorithms have been demonstrated to be reliable. However, the Validation Project determined that the RDC/TMD Axis I validity was below the target sensitivity of ≥ 0.70 and specificity of ≥ 0.95. Consequently, these empirical results supported the development of revised RDC/TMD Axis I diagnostic algorithms that were subsequently demonstrated to be valid for the most common pain-related TMD and for one temporomandibular joint (TMJ) intra-articular disorder. The original RDC/TMD Axis II instruments were shown to be both reliable and valid. Working from these findings and revisions, two international consensus workshops were convened, from which recommendations were obtained for the finalization of new Axis I diagnostic algorithms and new Axis II instruments. Methods Through a series of workshops and symposia, a panel of clinical and basic science pain experts modified the revised RDC/TMD Axis I algorithms by using comprehensive searches of published TMD diagnostic literature followed by review and consensus via a formal structured process. The panel's recommendations for further revision of the Axis I diagnostic algorithms were assessed for validity by using the Validation Project's data set, and for reliability by using newly collected data from the ongoing TMJ Impact Project—the follow-up study to the Validation Project. New Axis II instruments were identified through a comprehensive search of the literature providing valid instruments that, relative to the RDC/TMD, are shorter in length, are available in the public domain, and currently are being used in medical settings. Results The newly recommended Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) Axis I protocol includes both a valid screener for detecting any pain-related TMD as well as valid diagnostic criteria for differentiating the most common pain-related TMD (sensitivity ≥ 0.86, specificity ≥ 0.98) and for one intra-articular disorder (sensitivity of 0.80 and specificity of 0.97). Diagnostic criteria for other common intra-articular disorders lack adequate validity for clinical diagnoses but can be used for screening purposes. Inter-examiner reliability for the clinical assessment associated with the validated DC/TMD criteria for pain-related TMD is excellent (kappa ≥ 0.85). Finally, a comprehensive classification system that includes both the common and less common TMD is also presented. The Axis II protocol retains selected original RDC/TMD screening instruments augmented with new instruments to assess jaw function as well as behavioral and additional psychosocial factors. The Axis II protocol is divided into screening and comprehensive self-report instrument sets. The screening instruments’ 41 questions assess pain intensity, pain-related disability, psychological distress, jaw functional limitations, and parafunctional behaviors, and a pain drawing is used to assess locations of pain. The comprehensive instruments, composed of 81 questions, assess i...

Introduction As a part of a multi-site RDC/TMD Validation Project, comprehensive TMJ diagnostic criteria were developed for image analysis using panoramic radiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT). Methods Inter-examiner reliability was estimated using the kappa (k) statistic, and agreement between rater pairs was characterized by overall, positive, and negative percent agreement. CT was the reference standard for assessing validity of other imaging modalities for detecting osteoarthritis (OA). Results For the radiological diagnosis of OA, reliability of the three examiners was poor for panoramic radiography (k = 0.16), fair for MRI (k = 0.46), and close to the threshold for excellent for CT (k = 0.71). Using MRI, reliability was excellent for diagnosing disc displacements (DD) with reduction (k = 0.78) and for DD without reduction (k = 0.94), and was good for effusion (k = 0.64). Overall percent agreement for pair-wise ratings was ≥ 82% for all conditions. Positive percent agreement for diagnosing OA was 19% for panoramic radiography, 59% for MRI, and 84% for CT. Using MRI, positive percent agreement for diagnoses of any DD was 95% and for effusion was 81%. Negative percent agreement was ≥ 88% for all conditions. Compared to CT, panoramic radiography and MRI had poor to marginal sensitivity, respectively, but excellent specificity, in detecting OA. Conclusion Comprehensive image analysis criteria for RDC/TMD Validation Project were developed, which can reliably be employed for assessing OA using CT, and for disc position and effusion using MRI.

Background There is a need to expand the current temporomandibular disorder (TMD) classification to include less common, but clinically important disorders. The immediate aim was to develop a consensus-based classification system and associated diagnostic criteria that have clinical and research utility for less common TMDs. The long-term aim was to establish a foundation, vis-à-vis this classification system, that will stimulate data collection, validity testing, and further criteria refinement. Methods A working group [members of the International RDC/TMD Consortium Network of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), members of the Orofacial Pain Special Interest Group (SIG) of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), and members from other professional societies] reviewed disorders for inclusion based on clinical significance, the availability of plausible diagnostic criteria, and the ability to operationalize and study the criteria. The disorders were derived from the literature when possible and based on expert opinion as necessary. The expanded TMD taxonomy was presented for feedback at international meetings. Results Of 56 disorders considered, 37 were included in the expanded taxonomy and were placed into the following four categories: temporomandibular joint disorders, masticatory muscle disorders, headache disorders, and disorders affecting associated structures. Those excluded were extremely uncommon, lacking operationalized diagnostic criteria, not clearly related to TMDs, or not sufficiently distinct from disorders already included within the taxonomy. Conclusions The expanded TMD taxonomy offers an integrated approach to clinical diagnosis and provides a framework for further research to operationalize and test the proposed taxonomy and diagnostic criteria.

Background Available screening instruments for identifying temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) exhibit methodological or logistic limitations. The authors conducted a study to develop and assess the validity of a self-report instrument in screening patients for pain-related TMDs. Methods By using psychometric methods for item selection, the authors developed short (three-item) and long (six-item) versions of the questionnaire and evaluated them for validity among 504 participants. Results Internal reliability was excellent, with coefficient α values of 0.87 and 0.93 for the short and long versions, respectively. When the authors dichotomized instrument scores at optimal thresholds, both versions had a sensitivity of 99 percent and a specificity of 97 percent for correct classification of the presence or absence of TMD. The specificity was at least 95 percent in the correct identification of people with nonpainful TMJ disorders or headahce without TMD pain. Conclusions With use of appropriate psychometric methodology, the selected items exhibited excellent content validity. The excellent levels of reliability, sensitivity and specificity demonstrate the validity and usefulness of this instrument. Clinical Implications Using this instrument will allow clinicians to identify more readily—and cost-effectively—most patients with painful TMD conditions for whom early and reliable identification would have a significant effect on diagnosis, treatment and prognosis.

No abstract