| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
CONCISE REVIEW |
1 Dept. of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery,
2 Dept. of Rehabilitation,
3 Pain Center,
4 Northern Center for Health Care Research, and
5 Institute for Medical Education, Dept. for Education Development and Quality Assurance, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen;
*corresponding author, University Hospital Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands; p.u.dijkstra{at}rev.azg.nl
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
KEY WORDS: temporomandibular joint disorder • generalized joint hypermobility • systematic review
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
The first scoring system for GJH was introduced by Carter and Wilkinson (1964) and has been modified several times (Beighton and Horan, 1969; Grahame and Jenkins, 1972; Beighton et al., 1973). In these modified scoring systems, the ranges of motion are usually visually assessed. Instrumental assessment of ranges of motion, to quantify hypomobility and/or hypermobility of one or several joints, has also been advocated (Kirk et al., 1967; Jobbins et al., 1979; Dubs et al., 1984; Fairbank et al., 1984; Haskard and Silman, 1985; Dijkstra et al., 1994). The assessment method and criteria according to Beighton are used in most studies (Beighton et al., 1973). In this method, the following ranges of motion are assessed: (1) passive hyperextension of fifth metacarpophalangeal joint, 1 point for each joint beyond 90°; (2) thumb apposition to the volar aspect of the forearm, 1 point for each thumb touching the arm, active hyperextension of the elbow, 1 point for each joint beyond 10°; (3) active hyperextension of the knee, 1 point for each joint beyond 10°; (4) trunk flexion with knees straight, 1 point when hand palm flat on floor. The maximum score is 9 points. It is generally accepted that an individual is considered "hypermobile" when at least 4 maneuvers exceed the predetermined range.
The reported prevalence of benign GJH is dependent on the study population. In Caucasians, the number of subjects with benign GJH reduces rapidly during the first 10 years of life (Wynne-Davies, 1970; Dubs et al., 1984). Asians show a higher prevalence of benign GJH as compared with English Caucasians (Wordsworth et al., 1987). Additionally, benign GJH is more prevalent in Iraqi students than in Caucasians (Al-Rawi et al., 1985; Bird and Calguneri, 1986). With regard to gender, females show a higher prevalence of benign GJH than males (Dubs et al., 1984; Al-Rawi et al., 1985; Larsson et al., 1987; Wordsworth et al., 1987).
GJH may be associated with a variety of complaints of the locomotor system, such as myalgia, arthralgia, traumatic synovitis, dislocation of joints, and soft tissue lesions (Kirk et al., 1967). An explanation for these associations might be that the locomotor system is more prone to mechanical overload, due to the excessive range of motion of the joints. An alternative explanation might be that the quality of collagen is poor in patients with GJH, resulting in early degeneration and associated clinical problems. Visceral complaints associated with GJH, rectal and uterine prolapse, support this latter hypothesis (Al-Rawi and Al-Rawi, 1982; Marshman et al., 1987).
A relationship between temporomandibular joint disorders, such as internal derangement and osteoarthritis, and GJH had already been suggested more than a century ago and has been frequently supported since then (Annandale, 1887; Speck and Zarb, 1976; Dolwick et al., 1983; Solberg, 1986; Tanaka, 1986). The supposed sequence of events in this association is that the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is involved in GJH, indicating that the TMJ is among the hypermobile joints. Due to this hypermobility, the joint is overloaded, resulting in degenerative changes which may become manifest as internal derangements and/or inflammation (Dijkstra, 1993).
Several studies have been performed to analyze the association between TMJ disorders and GJH (Bates RE et al., 1984; Harinstein et al., 1988; Plunkett and West, 1988; Westling, 1989; Chun and Koskinen, 1990; Blasberg et al., 1991; Buckingham et al., 1991; Dijkstra et al., 1992; Westling and Mattiasson, 1992; Adair and Hecht, 1993; Khan and Pedlar, 1996; Conti et al., 2000). The results of these studies are conflicting: Some studies yielded an association between TMJ disorders and GJH, while other studies could not demonstrate an association. However, the studies differ with respect to recruitment of subjects, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the number of subjects included, and the number of joints assessed for the GJH, which may have contributed to the conflicting results.
The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the available studies addressing the association between TMJ disorders and GJH with respect to methodology and outcome, and, if possible, to pool the data for risk estimation.
|
MATERIALS & METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Assessment
Because of the procedure for paper selection described in the previous section, papers and abstracts from non-peer-reviewed journals and sources were also identified. This strategy may have resulted in the inclusion of papers or abstracts with less-than-desirable quality. Therefore, the methodologic quality and content of the identified papers were assessed independently according to 14 specific criteria (see Appendix, www.dentalresearch.org) by two observers (PUD, BS). The criteria were defined with the aim of identifying possible bias, which may easily be associated with case-control studies because of their retrospective character. These biases may be related to patient selection ("selection bias"), to assessment and measurement ("information bias"), and to the influence of associated variables ("confounding) (Last, 1995). We grouped our criteria according to selection bias in the exposure and in the outcome, information bias in the assessment of exposure and outcome, and confounding by gender and age. As an additional criterion, the clinical relevance was assessed. In an open population, many subjects have symptoms of TMJ afflictions without experiencing clinical problems or without feeling the need to seek help for the TMJ affliction. Therefore, the cases were required to be recruited from a population of subjects seeking treatment for their TMJ problems, so that sufficient clinical relevance would be ensured.
Prior to the assessment, we extensively discussed all criteria to reach consensus about their content. In addition, all papers were blinded with respect to the title, the names of the authors, and the journal, to minimize observer bias. Nevertheless, it is clear that some papers could still be identified by their format, which may have introduced some observer bias.
Cohen's Kappa was calculated as a measure of agreement between the observers. In case the observers disagreed on a specific score, consensus was reached subsequently by means of discussion. Two additional papers were found after the independent assessment was performed (Harkins et al., 1995; Winocur et al., 2000). The same observers assessed these papers. Because the observers had already discussed the assessment results of the other papers, the assessment of the additional papers could not be regarded as being independent, and, hence, Kappa was not calculated.
Following the assessment by the observers, the corresponding author of each article was contacted, by letter or by e-mail, and requested to indicate whether or not he/she agreed with the assessment score. If no answer was received within 3 weeks, it was assumed that the author agreed with the assessment as indicated in the letter/e-mail. In case of disagreement, the author was invited to indicate why he/she disagreed with the assessment. Only if the corresponding author could convince the observers was the assessment score adjusted accordingly. Despite extensive efforts to reach the corresponding authors, two of them could not be traced. Studies were selected for further review and analysis if each of the following criteria was fulfilled:
Of the selected studies, the corresponding authors were requested to provide a copy of their original data on which the analysis and the results of their study were based. The following variables were entered into a database: author, age and gender of the subjects, the status of subjects (case or control), number of joints presenting hypermobility, and the Beighton-sum score.
Statistical Analysis
Logistic regression analysis (step-wise forward conditional) with "temporomandibular joint disorder" as the dependent variable, calculations of odds ratios, and the Fisher exact test were performed in SPSSpc.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
, characteristics of cases and controls are summarized, the assessment of peripheral joints is specified, and the overall results of the different studies are presented. The results of the assessment according to the criteria are specified in Table 2.
|
|
In total, the records of 208 subjects (113 cases and 95 controls) were available for analysis. The mean ages were 28.6 yrs (SD 11.1) for the male subjects (n = 45) and 29.2 yrs (SD 8.6) for females (n = 163). A hypermobility score (Beighton score) of 
4 was present in 26 cases and 5 controls, resulting in a crude odds ratio of 5.4 (95% confidence interval: 2.0 to 14.6).
The results of the logistic regression analysis are summarized in Table 3. Generalized joint hypermobility and gender were significantly related to "temporomandibular joint disorders". The odds ratio corrected for gender was 5.4. Thus, the odds ratio of generalized joint hypermobility appears to be independent of gender (given the crude odds ratio of 5.4). Age was not included in the regression equation.
|
To assess the influence of the methodological quality on the results, we performed an additional scenario. Of the selected studies, the one with the lowest methodological score was excluded (Perrini et al., 1997), and a 2 x 2 table was constructed. The odds ratio could not be calculated, because one of the quadrants was empty. However, a Fisher-exact test yielded no significance (p = 0.102).
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
). The majority of criteria was adequately addressed in a few sentences. The data from only 3 studies could be entered into the analysis, because the data for one study were not available. This study was taken into account by means of a sensitivity analysis. From the analysis of the pooled data, the presence of generalized joint hypermobility appears to be associated with the presence of a temporomandibular joint disorder (OR = 5.4; 95% CI limits of 2.0 and 14.6, respectively). The results of the sensitivity analysis indicate that including or excluding studies from the meta-analysis may have considerable consequences for the results. Consequently, this review cannot be conclusive as to whether a relationship between TMJ disorders and GJH exists.
Pre-defined selection criteria were used because we were primarily interested in the clinical relevance of an association between TMJ disorders and GJH. If an association exists but cases do not seek help (i.e., treatment or advice) for TMJ disorders, there is no clinical relevance in the association. In several of the studies reviewed, different types of non-clinical cases (dental students, hypermobile children, an epidemiological sample of 17-year-old subjects, and children who were treated orthodontically) were included (Table 1).
For the "generalized" character of GJH to be sufficiently addressed, the assessment of the joints was required to include at least 2 joints on left and right sides. In some studies, however, only 1 or 2 joints were assessed: the dominant elbow and thumb, or dominant thumb or wrist.
Another basic requirement for this review was the involvement of the TMJ. Only 4 papers fulfilled our pre-determined criteria for TMJ involvement. From the other 10 papers, it could not be clearly deduced whether the TMJ was involved or whether the muscles of mastication were painful or causing the restriction. Furthermore, it is generally agreed that merely a clicking temporomandibular joint does not necessarily indicate that there is a clinically relevant TMJ disorder.
With respect to selection bias, which is a major threat to case-control studies, only criterion #2 was addressed by more than 50% of the extracted papers. Other criteria addressing possible selection bias scored poorly in most studies.
The range of joint motion was actually measured in only 7 studies. In the other studies, the range of motion was visually assessed, which may have introduced information bias of the exposure. In addition, in only 4 studies were the observers blinded, thus controlling observer bias. Although we used only 3 major criteria to select the papers for further review, only 4 papers fulfilled these criteria. Thus, in summary, the overall methodological quality of the studies published was low.
To analyze the stability of the odds ratio, we performed a sensitivity analysis. In Scenario III (added cases are not hypermobile and added controls are hypermobile), the odds ratio passed the neutral value. However, this scenario is unlikely on the basis of the results of Blasberg et al. (1991), who reported to have found no significant differences in hypermobility scores between cases and controls, although no further details about the numbers of hypermobile cases and controls were reported in the abstract. Thus, on the basis of these analyses, GJH might be a risk factor for TMJ disorders, because the odds ratio passed the neutral value in only the most unlikely scenario (III).
To assess a possible influence of the methodological quality of the studies, we excluded the data from the study by Perrini et al. (1997), methodological score 5, and re-analyzed the association between GJH and TMJ disorders. The association between GJH and TMJ disorders was no longer significant (Fisher exact test, p = 0.102). Thus, the methodological quality of the studies may influence the association between GJH and TMJ disorders, indicating that the results of this meta-analysis are unstable.
Not until the exact relationship between TMJ disorders and GJH is established on the basis of methodologically sound research will it be clear whether clinical measures can and should be taken to treat and prevent TMJ disorders attributed to GJH.
Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that it is not clear whether GJH is clinically associated with TMJ disorders. This lack of conclusiveness may be caused by the poor methodological quality of the available studies. Therefore, further research of sound methodological quality is needed to analyze the clinical relationship between GJH and TMJ disorders.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Received July 2, 2001; Last revision January 22, 2002; Accepted January 22, 2002
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Al-Rawi ZS, Al-Rawi ZT (1982). Joint hypermobility in women with genital prolapse. Lancet 1:1439–1441.[Medline]
Al-Rawi ZS, Al-Aszawi AJ, Al-Chalabi T (1985). Joint mobility among university students in Iraq. Br J Rheumatol 24:326–331.
Annandale T (1887). Displacement of the inter-articular cartilage of the lower jaw, and its treatment by operation. Lancet 1:411.
Bates RE, Stewart CM, Atkinson WB (1984). The relationship between internal derangements of the temporomandibular joint and systemic joint laxity. J Am Dent Assoc 109:446–447.[Medline]
Beighton P, Horan F (1969). Orthopaedic aspects of the Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 51:444–453.
Beighton P, Solomon L, Soskolne CL (1973). Articular mobility in an African population. Ann Rheum Dis 32:413–418.
Beighton P, Graham R, Bird H (1989). Hypermobility of joints. 2nd ed. London: Springer Verlag.
Bird HA, Calguneri M (1986). Joint mobility among university students (letter). Br J Rheumatol 25:314.
Blasberg B, Hunter T, Philip S (1991). Peripheral joint mobility in individuals with and without temporomandibular disorders. J Dent Res 70:278.
Buckingham RB, Braun T, Harinstein DA, Oral K, Bauman D, Bartynski W, et al. (1991). Temporomandibular joint dysfunction syndrome: a close association with systemic joint laxity (the hypermobile joint syndrome). Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 72:514–519.[Medline]
Carter C, Wilkinson J (1964). Persistent joint laxity and congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 46:40–45.
Chun DS, Koskinen ML (1990). Distress, jaw habits, and connective tissue laxity as predisposing factors to TMJ sounds in adolescents. J Craniomandib Disord 4:165–176.[Medline]
Conti PCR, Miranda JES, Araujo CRP (2000). Relationship between systemtaic joint laxity, TMJ hypertranslation and intra-articular disorders. Cranio 18:192–197.[Medline]
Dijkstra PU (1993). Temporomandibular joint: osteoarthrosis and joint mobility (dissertation). Groningen: Univ. of Groningen, the Netherlands.
Dijkstra PU, de-Bont LG, Stegenga B, Boering G (1992). Temporomandibular joint osteoarthrosis and generalized joint hypermobility. Cranio 10:221–227.[Medline]
Dijkstra PU, de-Bont LG, van-der-Weele LT, Boering G (1994). Joint mobility measurements: reliability of a standardized method. Cranio 12:52–57.[Medline]
Dolwick MF, Katzberg RW, Helms CA (1983). Internal derangements of the temporomandibular joint: fact or fiction? J Prosthet Dent 49:415–418.[Medline]
Dubs L, Gschwend N, Sonney F (1984). Die Messung der Bandlaxität beim Gesunden. Messergebnisse bei verschiedenen Bevölkerungskollektiven. Orthopäde 13:25–30.[Medline]
Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB, Phillips H (1984). Quantitative measurements of joint mobility in adolescents. Ann Rheum Dis 43:288–294.
Grahame R, Jenkins JM (1972). Joint hypermobility—asset or liability? A study of joint mobility in ballet dancers. Ann Rheum Dis 31:109–111.
Greenwood LF (1987). Is temporomandibular joint dysfunction associated with generalized joint hypermobility? J Prosthet Dent 58:701–703.[Medline]
Harinstein D, Buckingham RB, Braun T, Oral K, Bauman DH, Killian PJ, et al. (1988). Systemic joint laxity (the hypermobile joint syndrome) is associated with temporomandibular joint dysfunction. Arthritis Rheum 31:1259–1264.[Medline]
Harkins S, Cueva LA, Antoniotti T, Rocabado R (1995). Systematic ligament hypermobility and parafunction in temporomandibular disorders. In: Orofacial pain and temporomandibular disorders. Fricton JR, Dubner R, editors. New York: Raven Press, pp. 363-374.
Haskard DO, Silman AJ (1985). Measuring devices for studying joint mobility in the normal population. Eng Med 14:75–77.[Medline]
Jobbins B, Bird H, Wright V (1979). A joint hyperextensometer for the quantification of joint laxity. Eng Med 8:103–104.
Khan FA, Pedlar J (1996). Generalized joint hypermobility as a factor in clicking of the temporomandibular joint. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 25:101–104.[Medline]
Kirk JA, Ansell BM, Bywaters EG (1967). The hypermobility syndrome. Musculoskeletal complaints associated with generalized joint hypermobility. Ann Rheum Dis 26:419–425.
Larsson LG, Baum J, Mudholkar GS (1987). Hypermobility: features and differential incidence between the sexes. Arthritis Rheum 30:1426–1430.[Medline]
Last JM (1995). A dictionary of epidemiology. 3d ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Marshman D, Percy J, Fielding I, Delbridge L (1987). Rectal prolapse: relationship with joint mobility. Aust NZ J Surg 57:827–829.[Medline]
Perrini F, Tallents RH, Katzberg RW, Ribeiro RF, Kyrkanides S, Moss ME (1997). Generalized joint laxity and temporomandibular disorders. J Orofac Pain 11:215–221.[Medline]
Plunkett GA, West VC (1988). Systemic joint laxity and mandibular range of movement. Cranio 6:320–326.[Medline]
Solberg WK (1986). Temporomandibular disorders: clinical significance of TMJ changes. Br Dent J 160:231–236.[Medline]
Speck JE, Zarb GA (1976). Temporomandibular pain-dysfunction: a suggested classification and treatment. J Can Dent Assoc 42:305–310.
Tanaka TT (1986). A rational approach to the differential diagnosis of arthritic disorders. J Prosthet Dent 56:727–731.[Medline]
Westling L (1989). Craniomandibular disorders and general joint mobility. Acta Odontol Scand 47:293–299.[Medline]
Westling L, Mattiasson A (1992). General joint hypermobility and temporomandibular joint derangement in adolescents. Ann Rheum Dis 51:87–90.
Winocur E, Gavish A, Halachmi M, Bloom A, Gazit E (2000). Generalized joint laxity and its relation with oral habits and temporomandibular disorders in adolescent girls. J Oral Rehabil 27:614–622.[Medline]
Wordsworth P, Ogilvie D, Smith R, Sykes B (1987). Joint mobility with particular reference to racial variation and inherited connective tissue disorders. Br J Rheumatol 26:9–12.
Wynne-Davies R (1970). Acetabular dysplasia and familial joint laxity: two etiologic factors in congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 52:704–716.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. BADER and A. ISMAIL Survey of systematic reviews in dentistry J Am Dent Assoc, April 1, 2004; 135(4): 464 - 473. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| IADR Journals | Advances in Dental Research ® |
| Journal of Dental Research ® | Critical Reviews (1990-2004) |
