These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of Doppler sonography to magnetic resonance imaging and clinical examination for disc displacement.
    Author: Puri P, Kambylafkas P, Kyrkanides S, Katzberg R, Tallents RH.
    Journal: Angle Orthod; 2006 Sep; 76(5):824-9. PubMed ID: 17029517.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare electronic devices advocated as an aid in the diagnosis of disc displacement (DD) of the temporomandibular joint. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-five joints (48 subjects, 36 females and 12 males, mean age = 33.3 years, SD +/- 11.9) were evaluated in this study using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), clinical examination, and Doppler sonography. All subjects had bilateral MRI scans in the sagittal closed and opened and coronal closed positions. RESULTS: When the clinical and the Doppler diagnoses for all subjects were compared with the MRI diagnosis, there was a sensitivity of 73% and 90% and a specificity of 70% and 49%, respectively. When the clinical and the Doppler diagnoses for asymptomatic volunteers were compared with the MRI, there was a sensitivity of 0% and 100% and a specificity of 100% and 56%, respectively. For the symptomatic patients, there was a sensitivity of 80% and 89% and a specificity of 48% and 45%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The relatively low number of false-negative examinations suggests that Doppler is useful for ruling out DD and may be especially useful in symptomatic patients. Unfortunately, the specificity was low, producing many false-positive examinations.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]