To what extent are the characteristics of painful temporomandibular disorders predictors of self-reported limitations in jaw function?

Fetai, Afrim; Dedić, Barbara; Lajnert, Vlatka; Špalj, Stjepan

doi:10.1080/08869634.2020.1853309

Cited by 13 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Different race/ethnicities (Korean vs. demographically diverse group in the OPPERA cohorts) and cultural disparities might contribute to this subject bias. This is consistent with a previous study, 39 and TMD phenotypes did not affect masticatory dysfunction in this study (Tables 1 and 2). This result suggests that the pain source or pain mechanism of TMD appears to be less likely to contribute to jaw functional limitation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…None of the included biomedical factors affected the jaw functional limitation. Our previous study included a pain‐free TMD group with ID (n = 14) and compared it with the painful TMD groups, which was consistent with Fetai et al 39 The results of our previous study (Part I) showed that pain‐free TMD group with ID presents less jaw functional limitation than painful TMD (χ 2 = 9.534, p = 0.023) 12 …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Fetai et al 39 The results of our previous study (Part I) showed that pain-free TMD group with ID presents less jaw functional limitation than painful TMD (χ 2 = 9.534, p = 0.023). 12 The mean global scores of the JFLS-20 of patients with ID (presented in the previous study) were 0.8 (SD 0.9), 1.4 (SD =1.4), 0.2 (SD = 0.6) and 0.9 (SD = 0.7) for mastication, mobility, communication and global score, respectively.…”

Section: Biomedical Risk Factors For Jaw Functional Limitationmentioning

confidence: 78%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Disturbed sleep may be a core risk factor for jaw functional limitation in patients with painful temporomandibular disorders

Kim

2021

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Pain related to temporomandibular disorder (TMD) usually affects jaw function. In patients with TMD, little is known about the biopsychosocial relevance to jaw functional limitations. Objective This study explored the impact of biopsychosocial risk factors on jaw functional limitation in patients with painful TMD. Methods A comprehensive set of patient‐reported outcomes (PROs), consisting of pain severity (Brief Pain Inventory), psychological stress (Symptom Checklist‐90‐Revised), catastrophising thought (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia‐TMD), sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index) and jaw functional limitation (Jaw Functional Limitation Scale‐20), were administered, and clinical examinations were performed in patients with TMD. Results This study included the data obtained from 131 patients with painful TMD. In the logistic regression analysis, biomedical factors (age, sex, pain duration and TMD phenotype) were not associated with jaw functional limitation. Correlations were higher in the order of sleep quality (ρ = 0.946), pain severity (ρ = 0.582), pain catastrophising (ρ = 0.535), kinesiophobia (ρ = 0.486) and emotional distress (ρ = 0.268). Multiple regression analysis demonstrated three predictors, including pain severity (p = .001), kinesiophobia (p = .023) and sleep quality (p < .001) for jaw functional limitation. In the mediation analysis, the indirect effect of pain severity on the association between sleep and limitation was significant (p < .0001). Conclusion Jaw functional limitation is associated with biopsychosocial factors. In particular, sleep may be a core risk factor for functional limitation in patients with painful TMD.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Biomedical Risk Factors For Jaw Functional Limitationmentioning

confidence: 78%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Disturbed sleep may be a core risk factor for jaw functional limitation in patients with painful temporomandibular disorders

Kim

2021

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Translations/adaptations: The JFLS is available in English (original version), Croatian [21], and Chinese [22].…”

Section: Practical Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reliability and internal consistency: Just the Chinese version of the JFLS 20-item [19][20][21][22] met the criteria for sufficient reliability and internal consistency according to COSMIN. In addition, all the versions available met the criteria for sufficient internal consistency (Table 3).…”

Section: Measurement Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements in Temporomandibular Disorders and Headaches: Summary of Measurement Properties and Applicability

Aguiar

Carrer

Lira

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Several patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are available in the literature to support the evaluation and diagnosis of temporomandibular disorders and headaches. However, clinicians and researchers usually complain that they had no education on PROMs and low overall knowledge about PROMs. Objective: This study aimed to summarize, describing the measurement properties and clinical applicability of the main condition-specific PROMs available in the literature to the assessment of patients with Temporomandibular Disorders and Headaches. Methods: The current manuscript reviewed 10 PROMs commonly used in the field. Four instruments about functioning and disability: 1. Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), 2. Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CF-PDI), 3. 8-item and 20-item Jaw Functional Limitation Scale (JFLS), and 4. Manchester Orofacial Pain Disability Scale (MOPDS). Two instruments about headache-related disability: 5. Headache-Related Disability Index (HDI) and 6. Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6). Three instruments focused on TMD and headache screening: 7. 3Q/TMD, 8. Short-Form Anamnestic Fonseca Index (SFAI), 9. Headache Screening Questionnaire. In addition, one instrument about maladaptive beliefs regarding pain and injury: 10. Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular Disorders (TSK-TMD). Conclusions: The knowledge about the limitations and applicability of the PROMs commonly used to assess TMDs and Headaches can help clinicians and researchers to obtain reliable and valid outcomes to support the decision-making process. The current review recognizes the importance of using patient-reported outcome measures in research and clinical practice. However, our findings call the attention that further studies on the measurement properties of such instruments are imperative.

show abstract

Sleeping and waking-state oral behaviors in TMD patients: their correlates with jaw functional limitation and psychological distress

Yap,

Kim,

Lee

et al. 2024

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study investigated oral behaviors in various temporomandibular disorder (TMD) subtypes, assessing their frequency, extent, and associations with both jaw functional status and psychological distress. Materials and methods Anonymized data from consecutive "initial-visit" TMD patients at a university-affiliated oral medicine clinic were obtained. Alongside demographic information, patients completed various questionnaires including the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) Symptom Questionnaire, Oral Behavior Checklist (OBC), Jaw Functional Limitation Scale-20 (JFLS-20), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and General Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 (GAD-7). Patients underwent a protocolized clinical examination and received diagnoses of pain-related (PT), intra-articular (IT), or combined (CT) TMD using the DC/TMD diagnostic algorithms. Data were evaluated with Chi-square/non-parametric tests and logistic regression analyses (α = 0.05). Results The study comprised 700 patients (mean age 37.4 ± 15.7 years), with 12.6%, 15.1%, and 72.3% diagnosed with PT, IT, and CT, respectively. For all TMD subtypes, oral activities during sleep were more prevalent than those during wakefulness. While variations in total/subscale OBC scores were insignificant, substantial differences were observed in global/subscale JFLS (PT, CT > IT), depression (PT, CT > IT), and anxiety (CT > IT) scores. Near-moderate correlations (rs = 0,36–0.39) were discerned between overall/waking-state non-functional oral behaviors and depression/anxiety. Multivariate analysis indicated that the odds of different TMD subtypes were influenced by sex, age, and jaw functional status. Conclusions For all TMD patients, sleep-related oral activities were more commonly reported than waking-state activities. Factors such as sex, age, and jaw functional limitation are associated with the likelihood of different TMD subtypes. Statement of clinical relevance Oral behaviors, in themselves, do not predict distinct TMD subtypes, in contrast to factors such as sex, age, and jaw functional status.

show abstract

To what extent are the characteristics of painful temporomandibular disorders predictors of self-reported limitations in jaw function?

Cited by 13 publications

References 26 publications

Disturbed sleep may be a core risk factor for jaw functional limitation in patients with painful temporomandibular disorders

Disturbed sleep may be a core risk factor for jaw functional limitation in patients with painful temporomandibular disorders

Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements in Temporomandibular Disorders and Headaches: Summary of Measurement Properties and Applicability

Sleeping and waking-state oral behaviors in TMD patients: their correlates with jaw functional limitation and psychological distress

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About