PubMed · 16541838
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Kenneth Lau, Robert O Uppgaard. 2006. What's in A name?. https://doi.org/10.1179/crn.2006.001
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
It has never been investigated, if mandibular movements of patients with craniomandibular disorders (CMD) result in a lower reproducibility of dynamic functional parameters which are used for the individual articulator setting. The aim of the present study was to compare the reproducibility of electronically registered functional parameters in patients with CMD and in a control group. Dynamic functional parameters were recorded in 30 patients and 30 volunteers with a computerized ultrasound system (ARCUSdigma). The whole registration was performed three times during one session and three times at a second session 1 week later. The horizontal condylar inclination in the patient group gave a standard deviation of 2.17 degrees +/- 0.95 degrees , indicating poorer reproducibility than in the volunteer group, for which the standard deviation was 1.37 degrees +/- 0.42 degrees . The reproducibility of measurements of the Bennett angle was also poorer in the patient group than in the volunteer group, with standard deviations of 1.70 degrees +/- 0.62 degrees and 1.22 degrees +/- 0.40 degrees , respectively. The standard deviations calculated for determination of incisal inclination during laterotrusion was 3.02 degrees +/- 1.49 degrees for patients and 2.30 degrees +/- 1.17 degrees for volunteers. The standard deviations for incisal inclination during protrusion was 2.02 degrees +/- 0.95 degrees for patients and 2.06 degrees +/- 1.82 degrees for volunteers. The reproducibility of measurement of horizontal condylar inclination, Bennett angle and incisal inclination during laterotrusion therefore showed significantly lower reproducibility in the patient group than in the volunteer group (P < 0.05). The overall reproducibility of the measurements was nevertheless good in both groups, with standard deviations under 3.1 degrees , so that an individual setting of an articulator seems useful even in patients with CMD.
BACKGROUND: This article presents a comprehensive review of the recent literature regarding the scientific support for the use of surface electromyography (SEMG) in diagnosing and treating temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a Medline search involving human studies using the key words "surface electromyography or electromyography" and "masticatory muscles or temporomandibular disorders or craniomandibular disorders." They also reviewed relevant articles regarding the clinical usefulness of SEMG based on reliability, validity, sensitivity and specificity, as well as additional references included in some of the articles. RESULTS: The clinical use of SEMG in the diagnosis and treatment of TMD is of limited value when one considers reliability, validity, sensitivity and specificity as measurement standards. SEMG does not appear to contribute any additional information beyond what can be obtained from the patient history, clinical examination and, if needed, appropriate imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically, the determination of the presence or absence of TMD does not appear to be enhanced by the use of SEMG. However, the modality may be useful in a meticulously controlled research setting. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: SEMG has limited value in the detection or management of TMD and in some instances may lead to unnecessary dental therapy as a solution for those disorders.