The value of maximum jaw motion measurements for distinguishing between common temporomandibular disorder subgroups.

Abstract Objective. The purpose of this study was to determine if mandibular motion measurements could be used to distinguish between common temporomandibular disorder (TMD) subgroups that were established on the basis of only clinical signs and symptoms. Study Design. Patients were 41 consecutive TMD clinic patients (31 women and 10 men). These patients were divided into 6 typical TMD subgroups. The subgroups were patients with (1) arthromyalgia, (2) arthromyalgia with disk condyle incoordination, (3) disk condyle incoordination only, (4) osteoarthritis, (5) suspected disk displacement without reduction, or (6) other diagnoses. Results. There were no subjects in the other-diagnosis subgroup and only 1 subject with suspected disk displacement without reduction who was dropped without further consideration. The data for mean age showed that the osteoarthritis subgroup (n = 12) was statistically older (17 years) than the disk-condyle-incoordination-only subgroup (n = 11). The mean age of the other 2 groups, arthromyalgia (n = 11) and arthromyalgia with disk condyle incoordination (n = 6), was between the osteoarthritis and the disk-condyle-incoordination-only subgroups. For the 4 TMD subgroups whose data were analyzed, the mean differences between similar jaw opening measurements ranged from 6 to 8 mm with a standard deviation of approximately 8 to 10 mm. The mean left lateral motions were 0.5 to 1.3 mm larger than observed on the right. The widest mean jaw opening (56 mm) occurred in the disk-condyle-incoordination-only group. These differences were not found to be statistically significant. Conclusion. Analysis of opening, lateral and protrusive jaw motion data showed these measurements could not reliably differentiate between patients with osteoarthritis, arthromyalgia, arthromyalgia with disk condyle incoordination and disk condyle incoordination only. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;93:552-9)