A Clinical Comparison of Internal Joint Disorders in Patients Presenting Disk-Attachment Pain: Prevalence, Characterization, and Severity of Bruxing Behavior

CRANIO® ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omar Franklin Molina ◽  
José dos Santos ◽  
Stanley Nelson ◽  
Thomas Nowlin ◽  
Marcelo Mazzetto
1997 ◽  
Vol 59 (5) ◽  
pp. 745-748
Author(s):  
Li-man WANG ◽  
Satoru MINESHITA ◽  
Jian-zhong WANG ◽  
Su-xian DING ◽  
Wei-yun LI ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-17
Author(s):  
Molina Omar Franklin ◽  
Tavares Gimenes Pablo ◽  
Aquilino Raphael ◽  
Rank Rise ◽  
Coelho Santos Zeila ◽  
...  

Objective: To assess the level of depression, severity of pain and pain in single/multiple sites in patients with different severity of bruxing behavior and Temporomandibular Disorders (TMDs). Methods: We evaluated 131 patients with bruxism and TMDs: 20 patients with mild bruxism, 42 patients with moderate bruxism, 45 patients with severe bruxism and 24 patients with extreme bruxism. We used the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), clinical examination, a questionnaire of clinical epidemiological data, criteria for TMDs and bruxism, palpation of muscles and joints, the Visual Analogue Scale for pain, classification of the occlusion and biomechanical tests to assess for internal joint derangements. Results: The level of depression increased from the mild, to the moderate, severe and extreme bruxing behavior groups, but the difference was significant only from the mild to the extreme group (p<0.001). Pain levels increased from the mild and moderate to the severe and extreme subgroups, but were not statistically significant. Mean number of pain sites increased from the mild, to the moderate, severe and extreme subgroup and the difference was extremely significant (p<0.0001). Conclusion: Levels of depression, severity of pain and pain sites increased with severity of bruxing behavior. A higher number of pain sites with more severe bruxism indicates somatization in bruxers, but a further study using the same protocol and a psychological test for somatization would be indicated to further substantiate these findings.


1969 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 475-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Samra ◽  
I. S. Cooper ◽  
M. Riklan ◽  
J. Waltz ◽  
E. Levita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 547-547
Author(s):  
Frederico C. Martinho ◽  
Cinthya C. Gomes ◽  
Gustavo G. Nascimento ◽  
Ana P. M. Gomes ◽  
Fábio R. M. Leite

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. e005847
Author(s):  
Mamata Tamrakar ◽  
Priti Kharel ◽  
Adrian Traeger ◽  
Chris Maher ◽  
Mary O'Keeffe ◽  
...  

IntroductionCompleteness of Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study data is acknowledged as a limitation. To date, no study has evaluated this issue for low back pain, a leading contributor to disease burden globally.MethodsWe retrieved reports, in any language, based on citation details from the GBD 2017 study website. Pairs of raters independently extracted the following data: number of prevalence reports tallied across countries, age groups, gender and years from 1987 to 2017. We also considered if studies enrolled a representative sample and/or used an acceptable measure of low back pain.ResultsWe retrieved 488 country-level reports that provide prevalence data for 103 of 204 countries (50.5%), with most prevalence reports (61%) being for high-income countries. Only 16 countries (7.8%) have prevalence reports for each of the three decades of the GBD. Most of the reports (79%) did not use an acceptable measure of low back pain when estimating prevalence.ConclusionWe found incomplete coverage across countries and time, and limitations in the primary prevalence studies included in the GBD 2017 study. This means there is considerable uncertainty about GBD estimates of low back pain prevalence and the disease burden metrics derived from prevalence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document