De Boever J A, Carlsson G E, Klineberg I J
Department of Fixed Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Facial Pain Unit, University of Gent, Belgium.
J Oral Rehabil. 2000 Aug;27(8):647-59. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2000.00623.x.
The second part of this review, evaluating the literature on the relationship between dental occlusion and temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), focuses on the aetiological importance of tooth loss and the place of prosthodontic replacement in the treatment of TMD. Loss of teeth and lack of posterior occlusal support seem to have little influence on the development of TMD, which calls into question the use of prosthodontic restoration as prevention or treatment for TMD. In addition, there are practically no studies assessing the benefit of instrumental analysis in diagnosis or comparing the outcome of prosthodontic treatment with simple reversible methods in the management of TMD. There is a trend in the current literature to abandon any treatment, including positioning appliances and prosthodontic measures, to 'recapture the disk' in patients with disk displacements because of the favourable, long-term results achieved after using more simple methods. It is concluded that prosthetic therapy in TMD patients is not appropriate for initial TMD treatment and should only be carried out on prosthodontic indications after reversible treatment has alleviated pain and dysfunction.
本综述的第二部分评估了关于牙合与颞下颌关节紊乱病(TMD)之间关系的文献,重点关注牙齿缺失的病因学重要性以及修复体替代在TMD治疗中的地位。牙齿缺失和后牙咬合支持的缺乏似乎对TMD的发展影响不大,这对将修复体修复用作TMD的预防或治疗提出了质疑。此外,几乎没有研究评估器械分析在诊断中的益处,或比较修复治疗与简单可逆方法在TMD管理中的效果。当前文献中有这样一种趋势,即对于盘移位患者,放弃包括定位矫治器和修复措施在内的任何治疗来“恢复盘的位置”,因为使用更简单的方法已取得了良好的长期效果。得出的结论是,TMD患者的修复治疗不适用于TMD的初始治疗,仅应在可逆治疗缓解疼痛和功能障碍后,根据修复适应症进行。