Association Between Temporomandibular Joint Disorders and Personality‐Related Issues: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Temporomandibular joint disorder (TMD) encompasses pain and functional impairment in the masticatory muscles and temporomandibular joint. The etiology of TMD is widely recognized as multifactorial, involving biological, psychological, social, and environmental factors. Among these, personality‐related issues are frequently identified as a significant risk factors for the onset and progression of TMD. This study aimed to systematically evaluate and quantify the association between TMD and personality‐related issues through a comprehensive systematic review and meta‐analysis. Method A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, Wiley, Cochrane, and Embase databases to identify relevant studies up to March 13, 2024. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. A random‐effects model was employed for the meta‐analysis, with standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) serving as measures of effect size. Study heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic, while publication bias was examined using a funnel plot, along with Begg and Egger's tests. Results After removing duplicates, 827 articles were identified, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria for the meta‐analysis. The meta‐analysis revealed a small but statistically significant positive association between temporomandibular joint disorders (TMD) and personality‐related issues (SMD = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.55). This finding indicates that TMD is linked to elevated personality disorder scores. However, no statistically significant correlation was observed between TMD and personality traits. Conclusion The findings highlight a weak yet statistically significant positive association between TMD and personality‐related issues. These results underscore the importance of considering psychological factors in the diagnosis and management of TMD to improve patient outcomes.
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 | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".