Do Temporomandibular Disorder Patients with Joint Pain Exhibit Forward Head Posture? A Cephalometric Study.

Purpose: To evaluate head and cervical posture in individuals with or without temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and to assess the correlations between pain, severity of symptoms, and posture. Methods: A total of 384 patients (129 males and 255 females) was included. The Fonseca Anamnestic Index (FAI) was used to assess the severity and prevalence of TMD and the presence of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pain. Patients were divided into three groups: the TMD-free group, TMD without TMJ pain group, and TMD with TMJ pain group. Subsequently, the patients with TMJ pain were further divided into mild TMD and moderate/severe TMD groups. Nine parameters were traced on cephalograms to characterize the head and cervical posture. Results: TMD patients with TMJ pain showed increased forward head posture (FHP) than patients without TMJ pain and TMD-free subjects. No significant difference was observed between the TMD patients without TMJ pain and TMD-free subjects. In the TMD patients with the TMJ pain group, the moderate/severe TMD patients demonstrated increased FHP compared to mild TMD patients. TMD patients with joint pain had greater CVT/RL (B = 3.099), OPT/RL (B = 2.117), and NSL/C2' (B = 4.646) than the patients without joint pain after adjusting for confounding variables (P < 0.05). Conclusion: TMD patients with TMJ pain showed increased FHP compared to other groups, and FHP became more significant as TMD severity increased in male patients, indicating the FHP might play an important role in the development of TMJ pain. In the clinical assessment of TMD, the patients' abnormal head and cervical posture might be considered.

Associations among Orthodontic History, Psychological Status, and Temporomandibular-Related Quality of Life: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Objectives: This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the associations among orthodontic history, psychological status, and temporomandibular-related quality of life. Methods: A questionnaire was developed and distributed to students in a local college, containing questions about demographic information, the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), the Fonseca anamnestic index, and the Oral Health Impact Profile for Temporomandibular Disorders (OHIP-TMD). The respondents were divided into with orthodontic history (OS) group and without OS group. Binary logistic regression and multiple linear regression were performed for statistical analysis. Results: A total of 531 valid questionnaires were collected, covering 161 participants with OS and 370 participants without OS. No statistically significant differences were observed in the scores of PHQ-4 between the two groups. There was statistical difference in the prevalence of TMD (with OS group, 54.66%; without OS group, 40.81%) and the mean value ( ± standard deviations) of the scores of OHIP-TMD (with OS group, 9.64 ± 12.36; without OS group, 6.64 ± 10.79) (p < 0.05). After adjusting confounding factors, participants with OS have worse temporomandibular-related quality of life and a higher risk of having TMD than the participants without OS. Conclusions: Orthodontic history was related with the higher prevalence of TMD and worse temporomandibular-related quality of life, but not related with psychological distress, and the cause-and-effect relationship needs further exploration.

Do Specific Craniomaxillofacial Features Correlate with Psychological Distress in Adult Pretreatment Orthodontic Patients? A Cephalometric Study.

Purpose: To explore the relationship between craniomaxillofacial features and psychological distress among adult pretreatment orthodontic patients. Methods: A group of 190 patients (95 males and 95 females) was included. Questionnaires including the Kessler psychological distress scale (K10) were sent to patients, and cephalograms were collected. Patients were divided into two groups according to K10 score: psychological distress group (score ≥ 20) and no psychological distress group (score < 20). Nineteen hard tissue and thirteen soft tissue parameters were traced on cephalograms to characterize the craniomaxillofacial features. Results: There was no significant difference in gender or age distribution between the two groups. Male patients with psychological distress showed statistically significantly larger anterior facial height (AFH) (126.62 mm vs. 120.97 mm), upper lip length (25.11 mm vs. 23.26 mm), and smaller overbite (1.21 mm vs. 2.75 mm) than patients without psychological distress. Male patients with hyperdivergent pattern and open bite were more likely to have psychological distress. None of the parameters showed statistical differences across groups in females. Frankfort-mandibular plane angle (r = 0.235), Bjork's sum (r = 0.311), AFH (r = 0.322), overbite (r = -0.238), AFH/posterior facial height (r = 0.251), and upper anterior facial height (UAFH)/lower anterior facial height (LAFH) (r = -0.230) were correlated with K10 score in males. After adjusting gender and age, the AFH (B = 0.147) and UAFH/LAFH (B = -14.923) were significantly related with the K10 score. Conclusion: Psychological distress was mainly correlated with hyperdivergent pattern, open bite, and larger lower anterior facial height proportion in pretreatment orthodontic patients. Orthodontists should be aware of the possible underlying psychological distress in patients with specific craniomaxillofacial features. Clinical assessment of psychological distress may need to take into account gender differences in patients.

Craniofacial Morphology of Orthodontic Patients with and without Temporomandibular Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Purpose: We aimed to explore the relationship between temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and craniofacial morphology in orthodontic patients. Methods: Altogether, 262 orthodontic patients were included and divided into two groups according to their Fonseca Anamnestic Index (FAI) scores: a no-TMD group (control group, FAI < 20) and a TMD group (FAI ≥ 20). Cephalometric parameters including cranial, maxillary, mandibular, and dental parameters were traced on cephalograms. Craniofacial morphology was compared between TMD and control groups, followed by subgroup analyses based on TMD severity, gender, age, and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) symptoms. Results: The prevalence of TMDs was 52.7% among included patients (138/262). The mean age of TMD patients was higher than that of the control group. No significant difference in gender distribution between the groups was observed. The most commonly reported FAI items were misaligned teeth, neck pain, and emotional tension. The Frankfort-mandibular plane angle (FMA) was larger in the TMD patients than in the control group, whereas no significant differences in other parameters were observed. Subgroup analysis based on TMD severity revealed that FMA and anterior facial height of moderate/severe TMD patients were significantly larger than those of mild or no-TMD patients. Among male patients, the anterior cranial base length was smaller, and the anterior facial height was larger in the TMD group. Among female patients, no significant differences in craniofacial morphology between the groups were observed. In juvenile patients, overjet and overbite were smaller in the TMD group. In adult patients, SNA, ANB, FMA, and gonial angle were larger in the TMD group. Within the TMD group, patients with TMJ pain or noises exhibited characteristic craniofacial features compared to patients without these symptoms. Conclusions: Orthodontic patients with TMDs have specific craniofacial morphology, suggesting a relationship between TMDs and particular craniofacial features in orthodontic patients.