Temporomandibular Disorders: Variation in Clinical Practice
Abstract
This research describes the extent of variability in diagnosis and treatment of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and relates this variability to treatment outcomes. A health maintenance organization sequentially referred 145 patients with orofacial pain and dysfunction to two TMD clinics. The two clinics differed substantially in their use of tomography (applied to 28% vs. 64% of all patients), and varied moderately in diagnoses assigned to the patient groups. There was large variation in selection of treatments including appliances for bruxism (64% vs. 5%), mandibular repositioning (10% vs. 25%), and joint stabilization (3% vs. 30%); anti-inflammatory medications (44% vs. 19%) and analgesics (16% vs. 2%); and subsequent referral for dental or orthodontic treatment (1% vs. 42%). The differences in diagnostic and therapeutic practice that were found were not associated with important differences in patient-reported pain and dysfunction at 1-year follow-up. These data indicate the need for systematic approaches to identifying, evaluating, and modifying variation in health care practices for common presenting problems lacking reliable methods of evaluation and generally accepted clinical standards for choice of treatments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Observational studies have reported high variability in care for similar complaints in people living with chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders.
“People living with chronic pain associated with TMD have several interventions from which to choose, and observational studies have reported high variability in care for similar complaints.”
From Management of chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders: a clinical practice guideline (2023) · cites this paper as [30]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Busse, J. W., Casassus, R., Carrasco-Labra, A., Durham, J., Mock, D., Zakrzewska, J. M., Palmer, C., Samer, C. F., Coen, M., Guevremont, B., et al. (2023) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-076227 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Vuckovic, N., Schneider, J., Williams, L. A., & Ramirez, M. (2010) · EXPLORE · doi:10.1016/j.explore.2010.08.005 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- Authors
- Von Korff, M. R., Howard, J. A., Truelove, E. L., Sommers, E., Wagner, E. H., & Dworkin, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Group Health Cooperative (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wagner, Edward H.
- Venue
- Medical Care
- Published
- 1988-03
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 307-314
- ISSN
- 0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2016834646
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 4.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Complementary and Manual Therapy › Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
- Keywords
- temporomandibular disorders, orofacial pain, treatment variation, diagnostic variability, health maintenance organizations, tomography, mandibular repositioning, joint stabilization, anti-inflammatory agents, analgesics, treatment outcomes
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Dental Health Services, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Maintenance Organizations, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Referral and Consultation, Research, Temporomandibular Joint Disorders, Time Factors, Washington
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review