Temporomandibular disorders after whiplash injury: a controlled, prospective study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Whiplash injury to the neck is often considered a significant risk factor for development of temporomandibular disorders (TMD), and has been proposed to produce internal derangements of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Few studies, however, have examined TMD-related pain in acute whiplash patients compared with a matched control group. The aim of the present study was to assess pain and sensorimotor function in the craniofacial region in an unselected group of patients sustaining a motor vehicle accident involving a rear collision. METHODS: Prospectively, 19 acute whiplash patients exposed to a motor vehicle accident involving a rear collision participated in a study of TMD. The control group consisted of 20 age- and gender-matched ankle-injury patients. Participants were seen within 4 weeks and again at 6 months post-injury. The masticatory system was examined in accordance with the research diagnostic criteria. Participants underwent structured interviews, filled out the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and had their masticatory system examined by a trained dentist, blinded to their diagnosis. Pain detection threshold (PDT) to pressure stimuli, and maximal voluntary occlusal force (MVOF) were obtained at each visit. RESULTS: One whiplash patient and 1 ankle-injury patient had jaw pain at the first visit. Palpation scores of the TMJ and the summated palpation scores only tended to be higher in patients sustaining a whiplash injury than in ankle-injury controls at the first visit. However, MPQ, TMD symptoms and signs, MVOF and PDT were not significantly different in whiplash-injury and ankle-injury patients after 4 weeks and 6 months. CONCLUSION: TMD pain after whiplash injury and ankle injury is rare, suggesting that whiplash injury is not a major risk factor for the development of TMD problems. Further studies are needed to identify which other factors may contribute to TMD pain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".