Goulet J P, Clark G T, Flack V F, Liu C
Département de Stomatologie, Faculté de Médecine Dentaire, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
J Orofac Pain. 1998 Winter;12(1):17-26.
The purpose of this study was (1) to evaluate the reproducibility of two masticatory muscle and joint tenderness detection methods; (2) to evaluate the reproducibility of maximum mandibular movement measurements; and (3) to investigate factors influencing examiner agreement. The tenderness assessment procedures involved application of a standard pressure for 2 seconds over four anatomically defined masticatory muscle sites, one control forehead site, and two temporomandibular joint sites on each side of the face. One technique utilized a pressure algometer (PAP), while the other technique required that a trained examiner apply pressure with the index fingertip (FPP). Seventy-two subjects (36 patients and 36 controls) were evaluated in a single-blind study design. Control subjects were matched for age, gender, and race with temporomandibular disorder subjects. Each subject was examined twice with each of the described methods in a randomized, fully balanced sequence by calibrated examiners. Tenderness levels were determined by the subject via self-report of pain upon pressure using a standard set of verbal descriptors. Maximum pain-free, active, and passive opening, and maximum active right and left lateral movements were measured using a millimeter ruler. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for the tenderness assessment methods ranged from 0.220 to 0.739 for the FPP method and from 0.391 to 0.880 for the PAP method. ICCs for mandibular movement measurement were much less variable, ranging from 0.59 to 0.68 for lateral movement and from 0.78 to 0.93 for opening movement. These results indicate good to excellent agreement between calibrated examiners for mandibular movement measurement and for tenderness assessment methods at two masseter (i.e., superficial and deep) and the anterior temporalis sites. Only fair agreement was found for the middle temporalis and lateral TMJ capsule sites using these methods.
(1)评估两种咀嚼肌和关节压痛检测方法的可重复性;(2)评估最大下颌运动测量的可重复性;(3)调查影响检查者一致性的因素。压痛评估程序包括在面部两侧的四个解剖学定义的咀嚼肌部位、一个对照前额部位和两个颞下颌关节部位上施加标准压力2秒。一种技术使用压力痛觉计(PAP),而另一种技术要求训练有素的检查者用食指施加压力(FPP)。在单盲研究设计中对72名受试者(36名患者和36名对照)进行了评估。对照受试者在年龄、性别和种族上与颞下颌关节紊乱受试者相匹配。由经过校准的检查者按照随机、完全平衡的顺序,使用上述每种方法对每个受试者进行两次检查。压痛水平由受试者通过使用一组标准的语言描述词自我报告施压时的疼痛来确定。使用毫米尺测量最大无痛、主动和被动开口以及最大主动右侧和左侧侧方运动。FPP方法的压痛评估方法的组内相关系数(ICC)范围为0.220至0.739,PAP方法的ICC范围为0.391至0.880。下颌运动测量的ICC变化小得多,侧方运动的ICC范围为0.59至0.68,开口运动的ICC范围为0.78至0.93。这些结果表明,对于下颌运动测量以及在两个咬肌(即浅层和深层)和颞肌前部部位的压痛评估方法,校准后的检查者之间具有良好至极好的一致性。使用这些方法,在颞肌中部和颞下颌关节外侧囊部位仅发现一般的一致性。