JDR JDR Most Read Articles
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Appendix
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schiffman, E.L.
Right arrow Articles by Fricton, J.R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schiffman, E.L.
Right arrow Articles by Fricton, J.R.
J Dent Res 86(1):58-63, 2007
© 2007 International and American Associations for Dental Research

RESEARCH REPORT
Clinical

Randomized Effectiveness Study of Four Therapeutic Strategies for TMJ Closed Lock

E.L. Schiffman1,*, J.O. Look1, J.S. Hodges2, J.Q. Swift3, K.L. Decker1, K.M. Hathaway1, R.B. Templeton4, and J.R. Fricton1

1 University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, Department of Diagnostic and Biological Sciences,
3 Department of Developmental and Surgical Sciences, 6-320 Moos Tower, 515 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA;
2 University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Division of Biostatistics, Minneapolis, MN, USA; and
4 Veterans Administration Hospital Dental Clinic, Minneapolis, MN, USA

* corresponding author, schif001{at}umn.edu


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS & METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
For individuals with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disc displacement without reduction with limited mouth opening (closed lock), interventions vary from minimal treatment to surgery. In a single-blind trial, 106 individuals with TMJ closed lock were randomized among medical management, rehabilitation, arthroscopic surgery with post-operative rehabilitation, or arthroplasty with post-operative rehabilitation. Evaluations at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 60 months used the Craniomandibular Index (CMI) and Symptom Severity Index (SSI) for jaw function and TMJ pain respectively. Using an intention-to-treat analysis, we observed no between-group difference at any follow-up for CMI (p ≥ 0.33) or SSI (p ≥ 0.08). Both outcomes showed within-group improvement (p < 0.0001) for all groups. The findings of this study suggest that primary treatment for individuals with TMJ closed lock should consist of medical management or rehabilitation. The use of this approach will avoid unnecessary surgical procedures.

KEY WORDS: temporomandibular joint • closed lock • randomized clinical trial • effectiveness study


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS & METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) affect the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), masticatory muscles, and associated structures. Annually, from 1 to 3% of Americans seek professional care for TMD symptoms (Drangsholt et al., 1999). An estimated 2% of people with TMD have jaw locking from a permanently displaced intra-articular disc—that is, disc displacement without reduction with limited opening, or TMJ closed lock (LeResche, 1995). This advanced disorder can cause significant pain and interfere with jaw movement and function.

For most TMD, clinicians generally agree that non-surgical care should precede surgery. However, for TMJ closed lock, surgery has been described as preferable (Wilkes, 1991; Dimitroulis, 2005; Mercuri and Laskin, 1994). In practice, closed-lock treatment varies widely in invasiveness, based mainly on the provider’s experiences.

Studies to date do not support a standard of care for primary or concomitant closed-lock therapy. A review of closed-lock treatment literature found "no distinguishing effects" among orthotics, physical therapy, arthrocentesis, and arthroscopic surgery (Kropmans et al., 1999). Since then, two randomized trials found no difference between selected non-surgical treatments (Minakuchi et al., 2001), or between arthroscopic surgery and discectomy (Holmlund et al., 2001).

This report describes the first adequately powered randomized study assessing the effectiveness of four treatment strategies for individuals with closed lock. The strategies, defined by their initial treatment modalities, were: Medical Management, Rehabilitation, Arthroscopy with Postoperative Rehabilitation, and Arthroplasty with Post-operative Rehabilitation. The null hypothesis was that initial treatment with medical management improves pain and jaw function as much and as quickly as initial treatment by rehabilitation with or without surgery.


   MATERIALS & METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS & METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Participants and Study Design
This randomized effectiveness study was conducted at the University of Minnesota from June, 1992, to June, 2004. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained and renewed annually during recruitment. Participants were recruited from the University’s TMJ and Orofacial Pain Clinic, HealthPartners TMJ Clinics, and the authors’ private practices. Inclusion criteria were: age 18 to 65 yrs; daily pain in affected joints aggravated by jaw movement and function; duplication of pain when the affected joint was examined; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnosis of stage III or IV closed lock (Wilkes, 1989); limited mouth opening; and at least two years’ availability. Exclusion criteria, assessed by medical history, included: systemic rheumatic disease; generalized joint pain or swelling; pregnancy; concurrent use of steroids, anti-inflammatories, muscle relaxants, or narcotics; major psychiatric disease; any medical contraindication; drinking more than 3 alcoholic drinks daily; unwillingness to accept study treatments; and prior TMJ surgery. Eligibility was assessed, surgical risks discussed, consent obtained, and enrollment made by one of the authors. The randomized allocation had two strata defined by duration of decreased opening: "Non-chronic" (under 6 months’ duration), and "Chronic". Treatment assignment was concealed from participants and care provider(s) in sealed envelopes until the enrollment procedure was completed. The study coordinator then opened the envelope and informed the participant of the group assignment.

Clinical examinations and questionnaires were completed at baseline and three-, six-, 12-, 18-, 24-, and 60-month follow-ups. A single examiner, blinded to treatment assignment, performed all clinical measures. The examiner’s reliability for the Craniomandibular Index (CMI) examination was assessed yearly relative to a gold-standard examiner, with inter-examiner intraclass correlation coefficients between 0.88 and 0.93. The examiner had no contact with participants except during planned clinical evaluations. When participants presented for evaluation, a research coordinator administered questionnaires, instructed them not to discuss treatment with the examiner, and placed a thin tape over both pre-auricular areas to conceal the surgical scar’s absence or presence. Given these measures, further evaluation of the blind was deemed unnecessary. Masking participants to treatment would have required sham surgery, so the study was single-blind. The APPENDIX provides further details on participants, study design, and the flow of participants through the study.

Treatment Groups and Interventions
Participants were randomized among 4 treatment strategies labeled by their initial treatment modality: Medical Management, Rehabilitation, Arthroscopy, or Arthroplasty. All 4 treatment approaches represent current standard practice.

Medical Management included education on the participant’s condition, with optimistic counseling, a self-help program (Wright and Schiffman, 1995), and a six-day regimen of oral methylprednisolone followed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for 3–6 wks. Muscle relaxants and over-the-counter analgesics were used as needed. One dentist implemented all treatment.

Rehabilitation included treatment from a dentist, physical therapist, and health psychologist (Fricton et al., 1987a). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two treating dentists (ELS, JRF). Treatment was medical management (above) plus an intra-oral orthotic (splint), physical therapy, and cognitive-behavioral therapy. Physical therapy involved joint mobilization, physical therapy modalities, and a home exercise program. Cognitive-behavioral therapy included assessment of oral habits, maladaptive habits, and psychopathology, and two follow-up sessions focused on education, habit reversal, and improvement of compliance and self-efficacy.

Arthroscopy was performed by a randomly assigned oral surgeon (JQS or RBT), with the patient under general anesthesia (Moses and Poker, 1989). The superior joint space was lavaged, intracapsular adhesions underwent lysis, and intracapsular betamethasone was injected. Success was assessed when the mandible was manually moved through excursive movements.

Arthroplasty was an open-joint surgery performed by one oral surgeon (Clyde Wilkes) with patients under general anesthesia (Wilkes, 1991). A disc repositioning procedure (discoplasty) was attempted. If the tissues had degenerated too greatly, disc removal (discectomy) was performed.

The APPENDIX describes each treatment modality further.

All care providers followed their assigned participants for 6 mos, with additional follow-up as needed. Medical Management modalities were extended to the other groups; the surgical groups also received post-operative narcotics. Pre-operatively, surgical patients saw the physical therapist, psychologist, and surgeon. Post-operatively, surgical patients received the same treatments by physical therapists and psychologists as the Rehabilitation participants. If surgical patients needed an orthotic, one dentist inserted and monitored it. All but two Arthroscopy and five Arthroplasty patients received an orthotic. There were 15 bilateral and 8 unilateral arthroscopies, and 13 bilateral and 8 unilateral arthroplasties.

Study Measures
The primary outcome measures were the Craniomandibular Index (CMI) and the modified Symptom Severity Index (SSI). The CMI is a reliable, valid instrument for assessing jaw pain and dysfunction (Fricton and Schiffman, 1986, 1987). The SSI is a self-reported pain measure consisting of 5 reliable, valid subscales measuring sensory and affective intensity, frequency, duration, and tolerability of pain, and a non-specific symptom checklist (Fricton, 1990; Fricton and Schiffman, 1987; Fricton et al., 1987b). Clinical TMD studies, including the present study, have used a modified SSI excluding the symptom checklist (Wright et al., 1995, 2000; Shaefer et al., 2001; Fricton et al., 2002).

Adjustment variables included baseline CMI and SSI, baseline depression and somatization (Symptom Checklist-90-Revised; Derogatis, 1992), selected demographic variables (age, sex, and education; IMPATH, Fricton et al., 1987b), and family income (Health Status Questionnaire 2.0, Pearson National Computer Systems [NCS], Bloomington, MN, USA).

Treating clinicians assessed treatment compliance through the six-month follow-up, rating it as none or poor (0), adequate (1), or good to excellent (2). Medication use was assessed from data collected at follow-up visits.

Statistical Procedures
The primary analyses were by intention-to-treat; individuals receiving a second treatment modality during follow-up were analyzed according to their original treatment assignments. Ten participants withdrew after randomization, but before receiving therapy (Appendix Fig.). Eight were examined 5 yrs later; the five-year analyses include them. To assess their influence, we included, in a secondary five-year analysis, only participants receiving treatment.

The planned primary analysis was a separate one-way ANOVA at each follow-up time, unadjusted for multiple comparisons. As will become clear, adjustment was unnecessary. We checked whether combining times would produce a group difference using a repeated-measures analysis (linear mixed model, PROC MIXED, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Another analysis compared treatment groups at each follow-up time, adjusting for variables specified above (SAS GLM procedure). Other planned analyses compared groups by treatment compliance and medication use. Improvement from baseline was tested in each group at each follow-up time by paired t tests.

Assuming that a less invasive strategy would be preferred unless a more invasive treatment strategy would be superior, we planned 3 contrasting treatments—Medical Management vs. each of the other groups—for both the CMI and SSI, giving 6 total comparisons. The key to sample size specification was a meaningful improvement in jaw function and TMJ pain. Chronic pain studies have estimated a clinically important pain reduction as up to 50% (Turk et al., 1993). Population norms for the CMI and SSI are 0.10 and 0.03, respectively (Schiffman et al., 1990). The study population’s baseline CMI and SSI means were 0.45 and 0.62, respectively. Based on a 40% decrease in TMD-related pain, a clinically meaningful difference at follow-up would be 0.4 x (0.45 – 0.10) = 0.14 for the CMI, and 0.4 x (0.62 – 0.03) = 0.24 for the SSI. The power calculation assumed a one-way ANOVA with per-comparison alpha of 0.05/6 = 0.0083. With one-sided hypothesis tests, 20 individuals per group gave 80% power per-comparison to detect differences of 0.12 and 0.18 in the CMI and SSI, respectively.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS & METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Counts of participants randomized to each treatment group, acceptance of their assigned treatment, and attendance at each follow-up visit are presented (Table 1Go). Comparison of treatment groups at baseline showed no differences (p ≥ 0.09, Table 2Go). According to the same baseline characteristics, the ten participants declining their assigned treatment did not differ from those accepting it (p > 0.2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Total Participants Randomized, Total Participants Accepting Randomized Treatment at Baseline, and Total Participants Seen at Six Follow-up Intervals (Distributions by Treatment Group)
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Baseline Measures and Adjustment Variables [Means and (Standard Error of the Mean) by Treatment Group]
 
CMI results (Table 3Go) and SSI results (Table 4Go) show 2 rows of p-values. The upper row indicates differences between groups at each follow-up time, unadjusted for multiple comparisons. Group means did not differ at any follow-up for either CMI (p > 0.3) or SSI (p ≥ 0.08); neither was there a between-group difference after the exclusion of participants who declined assigned treatment (p ≥ 0.5; "60-month Treatment Received" in Tables 3Go and 4Go). Repeated-measures analysis of CMI showed no difference between groups in average or time-course. Repeated-measures analysis of SSI showed group differences only if follow-up time was treated as a continuous predictor, i.e., based on the assumption that SSI declined linearly. Then, the groups differed in time trend (p = 0.03): Arthroplasty achieved full effect by 3 mos, while the other groups improved throughout the 60-month follow-up. Adjusted analyses of CMI showed no group differences at any follow-up (p ≥ 0.09). In adjusted analyses of SSI, Arthroplasty was superior to Medical Management at the six-month follow-up (p = 0.02, with multiple comparisons disregarded); otherwise, groups did not differ. All groups improved over baseline (p < 0.0001) at all follow-up times for both CMI and SSI (lower row of p-values in Tables 3Go and 4Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Craniomandibular Index (CMI) (Observed Means and Standard Deviations by Treatment Group and Follow-up Interval)
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4. Symptom Severity Index (SSI) for TMJ Pain (Observed Means and Standard Deviations by Treatment Group and Follow-up Interval)
 
Treatment compliance was inversely associated (p < 0.05) with SSI up to 18 mos but not later. The groups did not differ in compliance (p > 0.09); average compliance scores ranged from 1.1 for Rehabilitation to 1.7 for Medical Management. Adjustment for compliance did not produce group differences for CMI or SSI (p > 0.2). Groups differed in prescription medication use at 3 mos (p = 0.001), but not later. At 3 mos, proportions of participants requiring a prescription analgesic more than once weekly were 17/28 (61%), 2/21 (10%), 9/22 (23%), and 1/19 (5%) for Medical Management, Rehabilitation, Arthroscopy, and Arthroplasty, respectively. Numbers requiring muscle relaxants were 8/28 (29%) for Medical Management vs. 2/21 (10%), 0/22, and 0/19 for Rehabilitation, Arthroscopy, and Arthroplasty, respectively. Physical therapy visits averaged nine, seven, 12, and 16, respectively.

Each participant received the assigned initial treatment modality for at least 3 mos, after which some participants in each group needed additional interventions for persistent pain and reduced range of motion. Of 29 Medical Management participants, 12 received rehabilitation after 3 mos, and one received arthroscopy after 12 mos (total, 45% receiving a second modality). One Rehabilitation participant received arthroplasty after 6 mos. Two Arthroscopy participants and one Arthroplasty participant received repeat surgeries. One Arthroplasty participant experienced nerve injury that resolved completely.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS & METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
The four treatment strategies did not differ in magnitude or timing of improved function or pain relief. Fifty-five percent of those initially treated with medical management alone had symptom resolution, consistent with natural history studies (Sato et al., 1997; Kurita et al., 1998). Just two of 52 Medical Management and Rehabilitation participants received surgery for persistent pain and restricted function.

An intervention study’s generalizability derives from its treatments and its population. This effectiveness study compared treatment strategies defined by initial modality. The Medical Management group was not intended to simulate treatment with medical management alone; rather, it simulated a strategy beginning with medical management and using more invasive methods only if required. The study strategies matched clinical practice and are therefore generalizable.

Regarding the study population, the principal symptoms of closed lock are pain and limited opening. By these symptoms, our study population is comparable with closed-lock surgical groups in four other RCTs (Stegenga et al., 1993; Fridrich et al., 1996; Goudot et al., 2000; Holmlund et al., 2001). When the SSI’s pain intensity scale was transformed to 0 to 10, mean baseline pain for this study’s sample was 6.3, and mean maximum interincisal opening was 29.1 mm, compared with ranges of 5.6 to 7.1 and 27.6 to 30 mm in the other four studies.

Criteria for the closed-lock diagnosis included clinical and MRI evaluation, both having acceptable validity (Schiffman et al., 1989; Liedberg et al., 1996). For Arthroscopy and Arthroplasty participants, all diagnoses were confirmed during surgery.

We did not evaluate arthrocentesis, which was used infrequently when this study began. Two randomized trials have compared arthrocentesis and arthroscopic surgery for closed lock (Fridrich et al., 1996; Goudot et al., 2000). Pain reduction was similar for the two treatments, but the latter study found arthroscopic surgery superior for improving mouth opening. Finally, the present study cannot determine how individual modalities (self-care, medications, physical therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, splints, or surgery) contributed to a group’s results.

This study provides a basis for advising closed-lock patients that, on average, short-term improvement with regard to pain and function, as measured at 3 mos, is similar for all four treatment strategies. Primary treatment for patients with closed lock should consist of medical management or rehabilitation. Within the context of this study, we were unable to detect any net benefit associated with surgery over that of medical management or rehabilitation at any follow-up period.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We acknowledge Dr. Clyde Wilkes and, from the University of Minnesota, Pat Lenton, Amanda Jackson, Constance Bromaghim, Bruce Lindgren, and Drs. Gary Anderson, Jana Reinhart, and Greg Pelletier. This study was supported by NIH/NIDCR grants R29DEO8668, P30-DEO9737, N01-DE22635, and R01 DE13421-01, by HealthPartners of Minnesota, Allina, and by the University of Minnesota School of Dentistry.


   FOOTNOTES
 
A supplemental appendix to this article is published electronically only at http://www.dentalresearch.org.

Received August 4, 2005; Last revision October 5, 2006; Accepted October 5, 2006


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS & METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Derogatis LR (1992). SCL-90-R: administration, scoring and procedures manual-II for the revised version. Towson, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research.

Dimitroulis G (2005). The role of surgery in the management of disorders of the temporomandibular joint: a critical review of the literature. Part 2. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 34:231–237.[ISI][Medline]

Drangsholt M, LeResche L (1999). Temporomandibular disorder pain. In: Epidemiology of pain. Crombie IK, Croft PR, Linton SJ, LeResche L, Von Korff M, editors. Seattle: IASP Press, pp. 203–233.

Fricton JR (1990). Musculoskeletal measures of orofacial pain. Anesth Prog 37:136–143.[Medline]

Fricton JR, Schiffman EL (1986). Reliability of a craniomandibular index. J Dent Res 65:1359–1364.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Fricton JR, Schiffman, EL (1987). The craniomandibular index: validity. J Prosthet Dent 58:222–228.[ISI][Medline]

Fricton JR, Hathaway KM, Bromaghim C (1987a). Interdisciplinary management of patients with TMJ and craniofacial pain: characteristics and outcome. J Craniomandib Disord 1:115–122.[Medline]

Fricton JR, Nelson A, Monsein M (1987b). IMPATH: microcomputer assessment of behavioral and psychosocial factors in craniomandibular disorders. Cranio 5:372–381.[ISI][Medline]

Fricton JR, Look JO, Schiffman E, Swift J (2002). Long-term study of temporomandibular joint surgery with alloplastic implants compared with nonimplant surgery and nonsurgical rehabilitation for painful temporomandibular joint disc displacement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:1400–1411.[ISI][Medline]

Fridrich KL, Wise JM, Zeitler DL (1996). Prospective comparison of arthroscopy and arthrocentesis for temporomandibular joint disorders. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 54:816–820.[ISI][Medline]

Goudot P, Jaquinet AR, Hugonnet S, Haefliger W, Richter M (2000). Improvement of pain and function after arthroscopy and arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint: a comparative study. J CranioMaxillofac Surg 28:39–43.[Medline]

Holmlund AB, Axelsson S, Gynther GW (2001). A comparison of discectomy and arthroscopic lysis and lavage for the treatment of chronic closed lock of the temporomandibular joint: a randomized outcome study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 59:972–977.[ISI][Medline]

Kropmans JB, Dijkstra PU, Stegenga B, de Bont LG (1999). Therapeutic outcome assessment in permanent temporomandibular joint disc displacement. J Oral Rehabil 26:357–363.[ISI][Medline]

Kurita K, Westesson PL, Yuasa H, Toyama M, Machida J, Ogi N (1998). Natural course of untreated symptomatic temporomandibular joint disc displacement without reduction. J Dent Res 77:361–365.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

LeResche L (1995). Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders. In: Orofacial pain and temporomandibular disorders. Fricton JR, Dubner R, editors. New York: Raven Press, pp. 189–203.

Liedberg J, Panmekiate A, Petersson A, Rohlin M (1996). Evidence-based evaluation of three imaging methods for the temporomandibular disc. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 25:234–241.[Abstract]

Mercuri LG, Laskin DM (1994). Indications for surgical treatment of internal derangements of the temporomandibular joint. Current controversies in surgery for internal derangements of the temporomandibular joint/Indications for surgical treatment of internal derangements of the TMJ. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 6(2):223–226.

Minakuchi H, Kuboki T, Matsuka Y, Maekawa K, Yatani H, Yamashita A (2001). Randomized controlled evaluation of treatments for temporomandibular joint anterior disk displacement without reduction. J Dent Res 80:924–928.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Moses JJ, Poker ID (1989). TMJ arthroscopic surgery: an analysis of 237 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 47:790–794.[ISI][Medline]

Sato S, Goto S, Kawamura H, Motegi K (1997). The natural course of nonreducing disc displacement of the TMJ: relationship of clinical findings at initial visit to outcome after 12 months without treatment. J Orofac Pain 11:315–320.[Medline]

Schiffman E, Anderson G, Fricton J, Burton K, Schellhas K (1989). Diagnostic criteria for intraarticular TM disorders. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 17:252–257.[ISI][Medline]

Schiffman EL, Fricton JR, Haley DP, Shapiro BL (1990). The prevalence and treatment needs of subjects with temporomandibular disorders. J Am Dent Assoc 120:295–303.[Abstract]

Shaefer JR, Jackson DL, Schiffman EL, Anderson QN (2001). Pressure-pain thresholds and MRI effusions in TMJ arthralgia. J Dent Res 80:1935–1939.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Stegenga B, de Bont LG, Dijkstra PU, Boering G (1993). Short-term outcome of arthroscopic surgery of temporomandibular joint osteoarthrosis and internal derangement: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 31:3–14.[Medline]

Turk DC, Rudy TE, Sorkin BA (1993). Neglected topics in chronic pain treatment outcome studies: determination of success. Pain 53:3–16.[ISI][Medline]

Wilkes CH (1989). Internal derangements of the temporomandibular joint. Pathological variations. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 115:469–477.[Abstract]

Wilkes CH (1991). Surgical treatment of internal derangements of the temporomandibular joint. A long-term Study. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117:64–72.[Abstract]

Wright EF, Schiffman EL (1995). Treatment alternatives for patients with masticatory myofascial pain. J Am Dent Assoc 125:1030–1039.

Wright E, Anderson G, Schulte J (1995). A randomized clinical trial of intraoral soft splints and palliative treatment for masticatory muscle pain. J Orofac Pain 9:192–199.[Medline]

Wright EF, Domenech MA, Fischer JR Jr (2000). Usefulness of posture training for patients with temporomandibular disorders. J Am Dent Assoc 131:202–210.[Abstract/Free Full Text]





This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Appendix
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schiffman, E.L.
Right arrow Articles by Fricton, J.R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schiffman, E.L.
Right arrow Articles by Fricton, J.R.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
IADR Journals Advances in Dental Research ®
Journal of Dental Research ® Critical Reviews (1990-2004)