Associations between temporomandibular disorders, pain, jaw and masticatory function in dentofacial deformity patients: A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patients with dentofacial deformity often present with impaired masticatory function, orofacial pain and temporomandibular disorders (TMD). This study investigates the relationship between TMD, pain, jaw and masticatory function at different stages of orthognathic surgical (OS) treatment. METHODS: A total of 120 OS patients were prospectively recruited and grouped as pre-orthodontic (group 1), pre-surgery (group 2), 4-month post-surgery (group 3), 24-month post-surgery (group 4), in addition to 30 controls (group 0). Outcomes were assessed using: Jaw Function Limitation Scale (JFLS), McGill pain questionnaire, DC/TMD instrument, voluntary maximum bite force (MVBF), and masticatory efficiency (ME) using two-coloured chewing gum. Data were analysed using structural equation modelling. RESULTS: The prevalence of non-painful TMD did not differ between groups (p = .827). However, the prevalence of painful TMD differed between groups (p = .001). Among the painful TMDs, the highest prevalence was observed for masseter myalgia in group 2 (p = .031), and importantly group 4 did not differ from group 0 (p = .948). The MPQ score was significantly higher in group 1 (p = .001) compared to group 0, and the JFLS score was significantly higher in groups 1, 2 and 3 compared to group 0. Notably, MPQ (p = .756) and JFLS (p = .572) scores in group 4 were not different from group 0. However, MVBF (p = .996) and ME (p = .991) did not differ between groups 1 and 4. The association of self-reported pain and jaw function with the masticatory function was observed in OS patients. CONCLUSION: OS was not associated with a negative impact on TMD. Jaw function and pain levels were similar to controls at the 24-month follow-up. The masticatory function was further affected by the surgery and seems to require a longer recovery time. Moreover, it was confirmed that pain and TMD were associated with limitations in jaw function and impacts on masticatory function.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".