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: How should the articular disk position be analyzed?
    Author: Provenzano Mde M, Chilvarquer I, Fenyo-Pereira M.
    Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2012 Jul; 70(7):1534-9. PubMed ID: 22079066.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare 2 methods used to determine the disk position based on sagittal magnetic resonance images. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study of patients with the signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders was conducted. The patients' ages and gender distributions were collected. The disk position diagnosis from the clinical examination was considered the primary outcome. Three observers evaluated the presence of anterior displacement on magnetic resonance images according to 2 criteria: method 1 (12-o'clock position) and method 2 (location of the intermediate zone). To assess the intraobserver variability of the 2 methods, the examiners evaluated the same magnetic resonance images at the beginning of the study (time 1) and 40 days later (time 2). The intraobserver agreement was assessed using the observed agreement and the kappa statistic. McNemar's test was used to assess the differences between each method and the clinical examination findings (P < .05). The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated by comparing the diagnosis from each method with that from the clinical examination (considered the reference standard). RESULTS: The final sample was composed of 20 subjects with a mean age of 33.0 ± 33.7 years; 3 were men (15%) and 17 were women (85%). A statistically significant difference between the 2 methods was found. Method 1 yielded a greater percentage of anterior displaced disks (52.5%). The agreement between the clinical diagnosis and method 1 was lower (70.0%) than that between the clinical diagnosis and method 2 (87.5%). No statistically significant difference was found between the clinical diagnosis and method 2. CONCLUSION: The disk position should be judged according to the intermediate zone criterion.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]