ABSTRACT
In addition to palpation tests, dynamic/static tests have been proposed to complement temporomandibular disorders (TMD) patients' evaluation in the clinical setting. The aim of this study was to assess the intra- and inter-observer reliability of the palpation tests and of the dynamic/static tests, and to determine whether those tests would yield comparable outcomes in terms of pain diagnoses. Ninety-eight (N = 98) consecutive adult patients were examined during 2 clinical sessions by 2 independent examiners, based on muscle and joint palpation techniques described in the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD). They also underwent dynamic/static tests. The intra-observer reliability of palpation tests was generally poor, with fair-to-good to excellent ICC values only for the superior masseter and intra-oral sites. The inter-observer reliability of palpation was fair-to-good for muscles, but it was poor for the TMJ lateral pole. Both intra- and inter-observer reliability for the dynamic/static tests varied from fair-to-good to excellent. The intra-observer reliability for muscle pain diagnoses based on palpation tests was between poor and fair-to-good, whereas the inter-observer reliability was excellent. The intra-observer reliability for pain diagnoses based on dynamic/static tests was fair-to-good, and the inter-observer reliability varied from fair-to-good to excellent. CONCLUSIONS: Some features of the dynamic/static tests make them potentially more useful than palpation tests for selected clinical purposes, such as discriminating between joint and muscle pain as well as monitoring symptoms course. Thus, findings from this investigation suggest that both tests should be included in the TMD diagnostic algorithms.
