RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To verify whether the Fonseca Anamnestic Index (FAI) has adequate sensitivity and specificity to be used in the diagnosis of temporomandibular disorder (TMD). METHODS: Two hundred-sixty-five participants with symptoms of TMDs were assessed through the FAI and through the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) and then classified as sick or non-sick. The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the FAI in relation to the RDC/TMD were calculated using the STATA 14.0 software. RESULTS: Most of the patients were female, white, without a steady job, and the average age was 37.57 years. The FAI showed high sensitivity (97.21%) but obtained a low specificity (26.00%). The positive and negative predictive values were 84.96% and 68.42%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The FAI is very sensitive in identifying patients who actually have TMD but not very specific in identifying non-TMD patients, being indicated only for initial screening of patients.
Assuntos
Transtornos da Articulação Temporomandibular , Humanos , Feminino , Adulto , Masculino , Transtornos da Articulação Temporomandibular/diagnóstico , Sensibilidade e EspecificidadeRESUMO
AIMS: To compare the difference in the quality of life between temporomandibular disorders (TMD) patients and non-TMD subjects diagnosed with the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) or the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD). METHODS: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) databases were searched in studies published in English and Portuguese. The search was performed by two independent reviewers in duplicate. A manual search and the gray literature were also included. The inclusion criteria were clinical studies that used the RDC/TMD axis I and quality of life with standard questionnaires in young and middle-aged adult population (18-55 years). The data were analyzed quantitatively by combining the results in a meta-analysis using forest plots. The measure of effect used was the standardized mean difference (SMD) in depression levels. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. The publication bias was assessed by funnel plots. The initial search included 806 articles without duplications. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles were included in the final systematic review. Of these, 9 were included in the meta-analysis, where it was shown a statistically significant in all axis I groups: (a) global TMD-groups I, II and III combined, N = 3829, SMD (95% CI) = 1.06 (0.65-1.51), p = 0.000; (b) group I-muscle disorders, N = 3,056, SMD (95% CI) = 0.82 (0.45-1.18), p = 0.000; (c) group II-disc displacements, N = 3,184, SMD (95% CI) = 0.59 (0.26-0.91), p = 0.000; and (d) group III-arthralgia/arthritis/arthrosis, N = 2781, SMD (95% CI) = 0.98 (0.59-1.36), p = 0.000. When compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life is affected in all axis I TMD patients, especially in groups I and III with higher pain intensity and disability as compared to group II.