Suppr超能文献

关节盘可复性前移位的功能性诊断检查的有效性。

Validity of functional diagnostic examination for temporomandibular joint disc displacement with reduction.

机构信息

Department of Oral Kinesiology, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Oral Rehabil. 2014 Apr;41(4):243-9. doi: 10.1111/joor.12130. Epub 2014 Feb 18.

Abstract

The choice of approach for diagnosing temporomandibular joint (TMJ) anterior disc displacement with reduction (ADDR), viz. functional examination or TMJ imaging, is debatable and complicated by findings of low agreement between these approaches. Our aim was to investigate the validity of functional ADDR diagnostics using clinical examination and opto-electronic mandibular movement recordings versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). 53 participants (32 women and 21 men, mean age ± s.d. of 28.7 ± 10.1 years) underwent a clinical examination, mandibular movement recording and MRI of their TMJs within 1 month. All were performed and analysed in a single-blind design by different experienced examiners for each technique. The sensitivity and specificity of each functional diagnostic method was calculated, with MRI as the gold standard. Anterior disc displacement with reduction was diagnosed in 27.6% of the TMJs clinically, in 15.2% using the movement recordings and in 44.8% on MRI. The specificity of the clinical examination for diagnosing ADDR was 81.0%, and of the movement recordings, 96.6%. The sensitivity was 38.3% and 29.8%, respectively. The chance of having a false-positive functional diagnosis of ADDR compared with MRI is low, and disagreement between the functional methods and MRI is mainly due to the high number of MRI diagnoses in asymptomatic subjects. In view of the fact that ADDR becomes clinically relevant only when it interferes with TMJ function, the functional diagnostic approach can be considered benchmark in ADDR recognition.

摘要

诊断颞下颌关节(TMJ)前盘移位伴复位(ADDR)的方法选择,即功能检查还是 TMJ 成像,存在争议,并且这些方法之间的一致性较低,使得情况变得复杂。我们的目的是研究使用临床检查和光电子下颌运动记录与磁共振成像(MRI)对功能性 ADDR 诊断的有效性。53 名参与者(32 名女性和 21 名男性,平均年龄±标准差为 28.7±10.1 岁)在 1 个月内接受了临床检查、下颌运动记录和 TMJ 的 MRI 检查。所有检查均由不同经验的检查者以单盲方式进行和分析,每个技术使用不同的检查者。以 MRI 为金标准,计算每种功能性诊断方法的敏感性和特异性。27.6%的 TMJ 在临床上诊断为 ADDR,15.2%通过运动记录,44.8%通过 MRI。临床检查诊断 ADDR 的特异性为 81.0%,运动记录的特异性为 96.6%。敏感性分别为 38.3%和 29.8%。与 MRI 相比,功能性诊断假阳性 ADDR 的可能性较低,且功能性方法与 MRI 之间的不一致主要是由于 MRI 诊断无症状受试者的数量较高。鉴于 ADDR 仅在干扰 TMJ 功能时才具有临床相关性,因此功能性诊断方法可被视为 ADDR 识别的基准。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验