Section for Orofacial Pain and Jaw Function, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Scandinavian Center for Orofacial Neurosciences (SCON), Aarhus, Denmark/Malmö, Sweden.
J Oral Rehabil. 2024 May;51(5):879-885. doi: 10.1111/joor.13651. Epub 2024 Jan 19.
The Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) protocol recommends a 5 s and 1 kg force dynamic palpation around the lateral condylar pole of the temporomandibular joint. However, the accuracy and precision of the generated force are not known.
To assess and compare the force profiles generated from dynamic palpation manually and using a palpometer, based on the forces and time recommendations suggested by the DC/TMD protocol.
Nineteen healthy adults applied forces of 0.5 kg, 1.0 kg and 2.0 kg on a calibrated force sensor in a circular motion within target times of 2 s and 5 s. Participants used their right index finger for manual palpation and a calibrated palpometer for device-assisted palpation. Ten repetitions of each target force at both target times were applied. Time taken to complete each application was recorded. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used for analysis of accuracy measured as the relative difference between targeted force and actual force values and precision measured as the coefficient of variation (CV) within the 10 repeated measurements.
Accuracy was significantly lower (better) and precision higher (lower CV) with the palpometer than with manual palpation (p < .001). There were significant differences in accuracy and precision between the different forces but not palpation times. Most participants could not achieve the target times and tended to be faster, irrespective of the palpation method (p > .063).
A palpometer is a more accurate and precise palpation method for dynamic force assessment compared to manual palpation; however, it remains difficult to standardize the palpation duration.
颞下颌关节紊乱病的诊断标准(DC/TMD)方案建议在颞下颌关节外侧髁突极周围进行 5 秒和 1 公斤力的动态触诊。然而,产生的力的准确性和精度尚不清楚。
根据 DC/TMD 方案建议的力和时间,评估和比较手动和使用触诊仪进行动态触诊时产生的力曲线,以评估和比较手动和使用触诊仪进行动态触诊时产生的力曲线。
19 名健康成年人在目标时间为 2 秒和 5 秒的情况下,使用校准力传感器在圆形运动中施加 0.5 公斤、1.0 公斤和 2.0 公斤的力。参与者使用右手食指进行手动触诊,使用校准触诊仪进行设备辅助触诊。每个目标力在两个目标时间各重复 10 次。记录每次应用所需的时间。使用重复测量方差分析评估准确性,准确性表示为目标力与实际力值的相对差异,以及 10 次重复测量的变异系数(CV)表示的精度。
与手动触诊相比,触诊仪的准确性更高(更好),精度更高(CV 更低)(p<.001)。不同力之间的准确性和精度存在显著差异,但触诊时间没有差异。大多数参与者无法达到目标时间,并且无论触诊方法如何,速度都较快(p>.063)。
与手动触诊相比,触诊仪是一种更准确、更精确的动态力评估方法;然而,仍然难以标准化触诊持续时间。