A retrospective analysis of temporomandibular findings among Israeli-born patients based on the RDC/TMD

Summary  The purpose of this study was to evaluate temporomandibular disorders (TMD) Axis I and II among Israeli‐Jewish patients using the Hebrew version of the Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC) for TMD and to compare the results with Swedish, United States, Asian and Israeli‐Arab populations. The...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of oral rehabilitation Vol. 36; no. 1; pp. 11 - 17
Main Authors: WINOCUR, E., STEINKELLER-DEKEL, M., REITER, S., ELI, I.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01-01-2009
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Summary  The purpose of this study was to evaluate temporomandibular disorders (TMD) Axis I and II among Israeli‐Jewish patients using the Hebrew version of the Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC) for TMD and to compare the results with Swedish, United States, Asian and Israeli‐Arab populations. The study consisted of 298 Israeli‐born, Jewish patients (male/female ratio 3·5:1), arriving at an Orofacial Pain Clinic during the year 2001–2004. A complete clinical examination was carried out according to the RDC/TMD protocol. Axis I diagnoses: 65% of the Israeli‐Jewish patients exhibited myofacial pain (Group I disorder), 38% disc displacement (Group II disorder) and 18% arthralgia, osteoarthritis or osteoarthrosis (Group III disorder). Axis II diagnoses: 20% of the patients scored severe depression and 35% scored somatization. Pain was reported in 82% of the patients (mean pain duration 35·7–33·8 months for women, 44·1 for men). Patients had an average disability score of 30·0 ± 30·2. Chronic pain grade IV was present in 4% of the patients. Israeli‐Jewish temporomandibular disorder patients showed results similar to those reported for other countries, further supporting the use of the RDC/TMD internationally as a reliable epidemiological tool. Globally, Axis I scores were similar, while Axis II scores were more susceptible to geographic/ethnic differences. Gender can influence Axis I and Axis II as well as possible gender specific association with socio‐economic status. In future comparisons, men and women should be considered separately.
Bibliography:istex:66CBC77D2692AD8334E3950A25B0631E3C550BA7
ark:/67375/WNG-BJLGQVGG-6
ArticleID:JOOR1898
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0305-182X
1365-2842
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01898.x