↓ Skip to main content

Validity of functional diagnostic examination for temporomandibular joint disc displacement with reduction

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validity of functional diagnostic examination for temporomandibular joint disc displacement with reduction
Published in
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, February 2014
DOI 10.1111/joor.12130
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. M. Marpaung, S. I. Kalaykova, F. Lobbezoo, M. Naeije

Abstract

The choice of approach for diagnosing temporomandibular joint (TMJ) anterior disc displacement with reduction (ADDR), viz. functional examination or TMJ imaging, is debatable and complicated by findings of low agreement between these approaches. Our aim was to investigate the validity of functional ADDR diagnostics using clinical examination and opto-electronic mandibular movement recordings versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). 53 participants (32 women and 21 men, mean age ± s.d. of 28.7 ± 10.1 years) underwent a clinical examination, mandibular movement recording and MRI of their TMJs within 1 month. All were performed and analysed in a single-blind design by different experienced examiners for each technique. The sensitivity and specificity of each functional diagnostic method was calculated, with MRI as the gold standard. Anterior disc displacement with reduction was diagnosed in 27.6% of the TMJs clinically, in 15.2% using the movement recordings and in 44.8% on MRI. The specificity of the clinical examination for diagnosing ADDR was 81.0%, and of the movement recordings, 96.6%. The sensitivity was 38.3% and 29.8%, respectively. The chance of having a false-positive functional diagnosis of ADDR compared with MRI is low, and disagreement between the functional methods and MRI is mainly due to the high number of MRI diagnoses in asymptomatic subjects. In view of the fact that ADDR becomes clinically relevant only when it interferes with TMJ function, the functional diagnostic approach can be considered benchmark in ADDR recognition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Egypt 2 3%
Germany 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 65 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Postgraduate 10 14%
Student > Master 9 13%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 61%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Linguistics 1 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 19 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 December 2015.
All research outputs
#7,057,506
of 24,549,201 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
#234
of 1,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,233
of 229,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,549,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,265 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 229,455 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.