Anterior disc derangement with reduction of the temporomandibular joint: a case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular dysfunction involving anterior disc derangement with or without reduction, secondary to posterior ligament insufficiency is typically managed conservatively with success in a majority of patients. When conservative management fails, the next step in the continuum of care is unclear. Platelet-rich plasma injection combined with a 3-week immobilization period may be effective in treating posterior ligament insufficiency following a period of physical therapy. The result of this case was exceptionally successful, with the patient reporting 100% improvement 6 months post-injection. Prior to this case, we predicted a 20% success rate based on her inability to maintain the effects of conservative management over the long term. CASE PRESENTATION: A 33-year-old white woman presented with temporomandibular dysfunction, which responded to an initial course of physical therapy aimed at restoring the mechanics of her temporomandibular joint, exercise management, and education on self-management strategies. She returned 20 months later and responded well to another course of physical therapy. Despite improvement in pain, range of motion, and mechanics, she continued to present with a reduction click at the end range of opening. The crisp and loud nature of the reduction click indicated a viable posterior ligament and reduction of the anteriorly displaced disc. She opted for platelet-rich plasma injection, provided by a chronic pain specialist with the assistance of a physical therapist. She was immobilized for 3 weeks, followed by a weaning period with reduced posterior support for an additional 5 weeks. Follow-up appointments with a physical therapist occurred at 3 weeks, 8 weeks, and 6 months post-injection. CONCLUSIONS: At 6 months, she reported 100% improvement. Objectively, there was no indication that the disc condyle relationship was disrupted. At 6 months post-platelet-rich plasma injection, preceded by a period of conservative physical therapy management, and followed with appropriate physical therapy follow-up, this individual had complete resolution of her anterior disc derangement with reduction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".