Temporomandibular disorders in Class II malocclusion patients after surgical mandibular advancement treatment as compared to non-treated patients
Paunonen, Jaakko; Helminen, Mika; Sipilä, Kirsi; Peltomäki, Timo (2019-03-13)
Paunonen, J., Helminen, M., Sipilä, K., & Peltomäki, T. (2019). Temporomandibular disorders in Class II malocclusion patients after surgical mandibular advancement treatment as compared to non‐treated patients. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12790
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Paunonen, J., Helminen, M., Sipilä, K., & Peltomäki, T. (2019). Temporomandibular disorders in Class II malocclusion patients after surgical mandibular advancement treatment as compared to non‐treated patients. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12790, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12790. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
https://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2019091828611
Tiivistelmä
Abstract
Background: Severe malocclusions may cause functional and aesthetic problems and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Studies have investigated association between malocclusions and TMDs and shown controversial findings.
Objective: Purpose of this investigation was to examine the prevalence of TMD sub‐diagnoses, using Diagnostic Criteria for the TMD (DC/TMD), in patients with Class II malocclusion and retrognathic mandible who had undergone mandibular advancement surgery 4–8 years previously, and to compare their frequencies with non‐treated patients with a similar pre‐existing condition.
Methods: Study cohort comprised 151 patients who had orthognathic treatment due to mandibular retrognathia in 2007–2011. Seventy‐seven (51%) participated in the study (Group 1). Group 2 comprised 22 patients who were planned for orthognathic treatment but had not started their treatment. Patients filled in the Finnish version of the DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire and were examined using to the DC/TMD Axis I. DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire were inquired by phone from 24 of the 74 patients who did not participate in the study.
Results: Results showed that Group 2 had more myalgia (13% vs 50%, P < 0.001) and arthralgia (18% vs 65%, P < 0.001) sub‐diagnoses than Group 1. A tendency was noted that Group 2 had more pain‐related TMD symptoms than Group 1. No differences were found between Groups 1 and 3 in gender and age distribution or frequency TMD symptoms.
Conclusion: Prevalence of especially pain‐related TMD diagnoses was higher in Group 2 compared to Group 1, thus indicating a possible beneficial effect of this treatment for TMD.
Kokoelmat
- Avoin saatavuus [32150]