Fundamentals

Manfredini, Daniele; Arboretti, Rosa; Carrozzo, Eleonora; Guarda-Nardini, Luca

doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-0876-9_1

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Owing to the poor knowledge on TMD aetiology at the individual level, and also because of the high success rates of several conservative approaches (57–60), the standard of care for TMD treatment is now based on symptoms management by reversible and non‐invasive treatments (61). Indeed, most patients with TMD seem to be good responders to unspecific treatment regimens, because of symptoms’ fluctuation and self‐limitation, regression to the mean phenomena and placebo effect (62, 63). The pathological relevance of purported abnormalities, such as joint click sounds, was strongly diminished (64), and there is growing evidence that chronic TMD pain is related to central sensitisation phenomena that require a complex multidisciplinary approach (65).…”

Section: Occlusion Body Posture and Tmd Symptomsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The need to find an objective relationship between clinical symptoms (e.g. pain evoked with palpation) and instrumental signs led to diminish the role and to the identify better the indications for otherwise technically efficacious devices, such as magnetic resonance imaging (76‐68), on the basis of their influence on decision‐making and treatment‐planning (69, 70).…”

Section: Diagnostic Accuracy Of Technological Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dental occlusion, body posture and temporomandibular disorders: where we are now and where we are heading for

Manfredini¹,

Castroflorio²,

Perinetti³

et al. 2012

J of Oral Rehabilitation

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The aim of this investigation was to perform a review of the literature dealing with the issue of relationships between dental occlusion, body posture and temporomandibular disorders (TMD). A search of the available literature was performed to determine what the current evidence is regarding: (i) The physiology of the dental occlusion–body posture relationship, (ii) The relationship of these two topics with TMD and (iii) The validity of the available clinical and instrumental devices (surface electromyography, kinesiography and postural platforms) to measure the dental occlusion–body posture–TMD relationship. The available posturographic techniques and devices have not consistently found any association between body posture and dental occlusion. This outcome is most likely due to the many compensation mechanisms occurring within the neuromuscular system regulating body balance. Furthermore, the literature shows that TMD are not often related to specific occlusal conditions, and they also do not have any detectable relationships with head and body posture. The use of clinical and instrumental approaches for assessing body posture is not supported by the wide majority of the literature, mainly because of wide variations in the measurable variables of posture. In conclusion, there is no evidence for the existence of a predictable relationship between occlusal and postural features, and it is clear that the presence of TMD pain is not related with the existence of measurable occluso‐postural abnormalities. Therefore, the use instruments and techniques aiming to measure purported occlusal, electromyographic, kinesiographic or posturographic abnormalities cannot be justified in the evidence‐based TMD practice.

show abstract