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: Research Diagnostic Criteria Axis II in screening and as a part of biopsychosocial subtyping of Finnish patients with temporomandibular disorder pain.
    Author: Suvinen TI, Kemppainen P, Le Bell Y, Valjakka A, Vahlberg T, Forssell H.
    Journal: J Orofac Pain; 2013; 27(4):314-24. PubMed ID: 24171181.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: To assess Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis II variables in an initial psychosocial screening and as a part of biopsychosocial subtyping of Finnish referral patients with TMD pain for adjunct multidisciplinary assessment. METHODS: Consecutive Finnish referral patients with TMD pain (n = 135) participated in this questionnaire-based survey. Psychosocial screening was based on Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) and culturally adjusted Symptom Checklist 90-revised (SCL-90R) depression scale scores and subtyping on GCPS pain-related interference in accordance with previous treatment tailoring studies. Biopsychosocial subtyping variables included symptoms of depression and somatization, general health, pain-related worry, sleep dysfunction, and coping ability. Subtype comparisons were analyzed with Bonferroni adjusted P values and multivariable logistic regression (SAS 9.3). RESULTS: Based on psychosocial screening, 44% of the patients were psychosocially uncompromised (TMD subtype 1), 33% moderately, and 23% severely compromised (TMD subtypes 2 and 3). Compared to TMD subtype 1, TMD subtype 2 patients reported intermediate scores, and the most vulnerable TMD subtype 3 had the poorest general health, most elevated depression, somatization, worry and sleep dysfunction, and poor coping ability (P < .05). According to multivariable logistic regression, depression and worry levels were significantly higher in TMD subtype 3 compared to TMD subtype 1, whilst patients in TMD subtypes 1 and 2 reported significantly better coping ability compared to TMD subtype 3 (P < .05). CONCLUSION: The Finnish RDC/TMD Axis II was found reliable in initial TMD pain patient screening and with further biopsychosocial assessment identified three main TMD subtypes, two with compromised psychosocial profiles for adjunct multidisciplinary assessment.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]