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: Subtyping patients with temporomandibular disorders in a primary health care setting on the basis of the research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders axis II pain-related disability: a step toward tailored treatment planning?
    Author: Kotiranta U, Suvinen T, Kauko T, Le Bell Y, Kemppainen P, Suni J, Forssell H.
    Journal: J Oral Facial Pain Headache; 2015; 29(2):126-34. PubMed ID: 25905530.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: To use the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis II and additional pain-related and psychosocial variables to identify subtypes of TMD patients in a primary health care setting based on pain-related disability. METHODS: Consecutive TMD pain patients (n = 399) seeking treatment in a primary care setting completed a multidimensional pain questionnaire. Subtyping was based on the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS), and the patients were divided into a no-disability group (0 disability points), lowdisability group (1-2 disability points), and high-disability group (3-6 disability points). Psychosocial variables included RDC/TMD Axis II variables, anxiety, tension and stress, worry, catastrophizing, coping ability, general health, and other pain problems. Subtype differences were analyzed with t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, ANOVA, or Kruskal-Wallis test. A further analysis with multivariable logistic model was applied. All P values from pairwise comparisons were Bonferroni adjusted. RESULTS: Most (61%) of the patients belonged to the no-disability group, 27% to the low-disability group, and 12% to the high-disability group. When subtypes were compared, patients in the no-disability group appeared psychosocially well-functioning, with fewer symptoms related to psychosocial distress, better ability to control pain, and fewer jaw functional limitations and other pain problems. Patients in the high-disability group reported the highest levels of symptoms of depression and somatization, sleep dysfunction, worry, and catastrophizing thoughts. The low-disability patients formed an intermediate group between the no-disability and high-disability groups. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that GCPS-related disability scoring can be used as a simple screening instrument in primary care settings to identify individuals with different, clinically relevant psychosocial subtypes.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]