GET THE APP

Current Concepts About Temporomandibular joint disorders: A Review Article | Abstract

Journal of Research in Medical and Dental Science
eISSN No. 2347-2367 pISSN No. 2347-2545

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.

Current Concepts About Temporomandibular joint disorders: A Review Article

Author(s): Samahir Mohammed Almubarak, Lubna Mohammed Ashour, Zahraa Hussein Aleissa, Afnan Mohammed Alotaibi, Rawan Maher Mortaga, Rahaf Khalid al Khulaifi, Abdulrahman Hunaish, Bassam Shugaa Addin, Mohammed A Noureddin*

Abstract

Temporomandibular joint is formed by the mandibular condyle inserting into the mandibular fossa of temporal bone. It’s considered as ginglymoarthroidal joint which mean that is capable of both hinge type and gliding movements. TMD affects up to 15% of adults, with a peak incidence at 20 to 40 years of age. However, it can be classified as intra-articular or extra- articular. The incidence varies from 21.5% to 50.5%. The prevalence of TMD is about 3.7-12% greater in women than men. There are two types of treatment: conservative and surgical. We all believe that the valid diagnosis is the key to successful treatment on account of TMD multifactorial nature and often of patients suffering from other disorder simultaneously that can make the correct diagnosis difficult. Manual TMJ inspection was and remain self-evident manner used to detect joint dysfunction related to clinical findings. The primary study should be plain radiography (transcranial, trans maxillary views) or panoramic radiography, the optimal radiography for comprehensive joint evaluation in patients with signs and symptoms is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), if MRI is not available ultrasonography can be an alternative ,ultrasonography(US) is noninvasive dynamic low cost technique that can use to diagnose internal derangement of TMJ(2).US is also one of the diagnosis methods for DDWR, in comparison with MRI, US revealed a sensitivity of 78.6%, specificity of 66.7% and accuracy of 73.0%. A range between 5% to 10% of patients seeking treatment whereas the others around 40% of patients are spontaneously free of symptoms. In addition, Initial treatment goals should focus on resolving pain and dysfunction.

Share this article