Palpation and Pressure Pain Threshold: Reliability and Validity in Patients with Temporomandibular Disorders
Abstract
This study assessed the interexaminer reliability and validity of palpation (PA) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and the masseter and temporalis muscles in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and asymptomatic controls. Eighty (80) subjects were distributed into two groups: Group 1 consisted of 40 TMD patients with muscular and joint pain selected by RDC/TMD Axis I; and Group 2 (control) with 40 asymptomatic individuals. Training and calibration of examiners was undertaken prior to testing. Mean reliability values were 0.64 and 0.78 (PPT), and 0.59 and 0.75 (PA), for patients and controls, respectively. Results showed statistically significant differences (p<0.001), for PA and PPT among TMD patients compared with the control. The results also showed acceptable specificity values (above 0.90), although sensitivity had low values. The tests had low diagnostic validity to discriminate between patients and controls, with low positive predictive values (PPV).
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?
The reliability of pressure algometry in the masticatory structures is high in healthy volunteers and in patients with temporomandibular joint dysfunction.
“The MCID for PPT has been reported to be 0.2 kg/cm2 in the masticatory muscles31 and the reliability of pressure algometry in the masticatory structures is high in healthy volunteers32 and in patients with TMJ dysfunction.33”
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lam, A. C., Liddle, L. J., & MacLellan, C. L. (2023) · Archives of Rehabilitation Research and Clinical Translation · doi:10.1016/j.arrct.2022.100242 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“2 kg/cm(2) in the masticatory muscles(31) and the reliability of pressure algometry in the masticatory structures is high in healthy volunteers(32) and in patients with TMJ dysfunction.(33) Reporting aligned with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.”
Method
- Authors
- Gomes, M. B., Guimarães, J. P., Guimarães, F. C., & Neves, A. C. C.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (BR)
- Venue
- CRANIO®
- Publisher
- Maney Publishing
- Published
- 2008-07
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 202-210
- ISSN
- 0734-5410 (ISSN-L)
- 0886-9634
- 2151-0903
- OpenAlex
- W2273496168
- Cited by
- 66
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 6.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CRANIO® (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Complementary and Manual Therapy › Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Myofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Keywords
- temporomandibular disorders, palpation, pressure pain threshold, temporomandibular joint, masseter muscle, temporalis muscle, inter-examiner reliability, diagnostic validity, examiner calibration
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Facial Pain, Female, Humans, Male, Masseter Muscle, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Palpation, Predictive Value of Tests, Pressure, Sensitivity and Specificity, Temporal Muscle, Temporomandibular Joint, Temporomandibular Joint Disorders, Observer Variation, Single-Blind Method, Pain Threshold
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
