Temporomandibular disorders in migraine and tension-type headache patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The simultaneous occurrence of primary headaches and temporomandibular disorders can pose a challenge in determining the best clinical management of patients. Therefore, we aimed to summarize evidence regarding the risk and prevalence of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) in migraine and tension-type headaches (TTH) patients. Cross-sectional studies published in English comparing the presence of TMDs in adults with TTH or migraine to subjects without headaches were included, International Classification of Orofacial Pain, Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders or Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders, and large epidemiological studies (sensitive diagnostic criteria (SDC)). The methodological quality was assessed by Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Odds ratio (OR) and random effects were calculated. 1405 articles were identified in PubMed, Embase and Central databases, and 13 cross-sectional studies were finally included. Overall Risk of TMDs was statistically significantly higher than control groups in both Migraine (SDC: 11 studies; OR: 3.79 (2.43, 5.90); I2 = 99%), with higher values in chronic migraine (OR: 24.27; (95% Confidence interval (CI): 5.84, 100.82); I2 = 0%) and TTH populations (SDC: 8 studies; OR: 4.45 (2.63, 7.53); I2 = 86%). Headache subjects presented a higher risk of muscular TMDs (5 studies; OR: 2.01 (1.62, 2.50); I2 = 0%), Combined TMDs (5 studies; OR: 2.74 (1.40, 5.36); I2 = 63%), or Painful TMDs (8 studies; OR: 5.31 (2.96, 9.54); I2 = 96%). Headache patients didn’t show the risk of arthrogenous TMDs (4 studies; OR: 0.96 (0.54, 1.71); I2 = 33%) or nonpainful TMDs (2 studies; OR: 1.10 (0.28, 4.26); I2 = 84%). The high heterogeneity in the results was reduced following subgroup analysis. Migraine and TTH appear to increase the risk of painful, myogenous or combined arthrogenous and myogenous TMDs.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".