The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Stomatognathic Risk Factors and Clinical Manifestations of Temporomandibular Disorders in Indian Population: A Case-control Study

Saee Deshpande, Neelam Pande, Pravinkumar Patil

Keywords : Disc displacement, Myofascial pain, Temporomandibular disorder, Temporomandibular joint disorder

Citation Information : Deshpande S, Pande N, Patil P. Stomatognathic Risk Factors and Clinical Manifestations of Temporomandibular Disorders in Indian Population: A Case-control Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (12):1195-1198.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3445

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-04-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: This study was aimed to compare the risk factors and associated clinical manifestations of patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) in the Indian population. Materials and methods: A total of 52 patients were explored according to the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) and compared with 48 controls. The mean age of the study group was 30.96 ± 11.60 years, 41% were males and 59% were females. The mean age in the control group was 31.5 ± 9.9 years (37.5% males), measuring differences in TMD risk factors (self-perceived stress, parafunctions, occlusal interferences, history of orthodontic treatment, and/or extraction). Results: The most common sign observed in the selected subjects was the joint sound (clicking) (42%), followed by mandibular deviation 39% as the second most common sign. Myofascial pain (MFP) (single or multiple diagnoses) was the most frequent diagnosis (n = 40, 76%), followed by disc displacement with reduction (DDWR) (32.1%), arthralgia (30%), and disc displacement without reduction (DDWoR) (7.6%). More than one DC/TMD diagnosis was established in 63.2% of the patients. The risk factors like presence of clenching, stress perception, parafunctions, tooth wear, and occlusal interferences were significantly more frequent in all the cases than in the respective controls. Conclusions: In the studied population, the presence of TMD was found to be positively related to factors namely female gender, parafunction, occlusal interferences, psychological stress, and tooth wear. Myofascial pain is the commonest diagnosis (either single or in combination). It is followed by DDWR (either single or in combination with others). Double diagnosis is also common. Clinical significance: Temporomandibular disorders showed a female predilection and were found to be positively related to factors, viz., parafunction, occlusal interferences, stress, and tooth wear. Clinicians should also be aware of common clinical manifestations of TMDs and their related stomatognathic risk factors to provide comprehensive oral care and to identify such factors for disease prevention.

PDF Share
  1. The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms: Ninth Edition. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117(5S):e1–e105. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.12.
  2. Valesan LF, Da-Cas CD, Réus JC, et al. Prevalence of temporomandibular joint disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2021;25(2):441–453. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03710-w.
  3. Jeffrey P Okeson. The Management of Temporomandibular Disorders and Occlusion, 7th edition. St. Louis, Mosby: Elsevier; 2013. pp. 109–112.
  4. Dworkin SF, LeResche L. Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders: review, criteria, examinations and specifications, critique. J Craniomandib Disord 1992;6:301–355.
  5. Poveda-Roda R, Bagan JV, Sanchis JM, et al. Temporomandibular disorders. A case-control study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012;17(5):e794–e800. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.18040.
  6. Francisco J, Lizett C, Jenifer M, et al. Clinical measurement of tooth wear: Tooth wear indices. J Clin Exp Dent 2012;4(1):e48–e53. DOI: 10.4317/jced.50592.
  7. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. Perceived stress scale. Measuring Stress: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists; 1994. pp. 235–283.
  8. Schiffman E, Ohrbach R, Truelove E, et al. Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) for Clinical and Research Applications: Recommendations of the International RDC/TMD Consortium Network and Orofacial Pain Special Interest Group. J Oral Facial Pain Headache 2014;28(1):6–27. DOI: 10.11607/jop.1151.
  9. Bonjardim LR, Lopes-Filho RJ, Amado G, et al. Association between symptoms of temporomandibular disorders and gender, morphological occlusion, and psychological factors in a group of university students. Indian J Dent Res 2009;20(2):190–194. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.52901.
  10. Ferreira FM, Simamoto-Junior PC, Novais VR, et al. Correlation between temporomandibular disorders, occlusal factors and oral parafunction in undergraduate students. Braz J Oral Sci 2014;13(4):281–287. DOI: 10.1590/1677-3225v13n4a08.
  11. Mélou C, Leroux L, Meary F, et al. Relationship between occlusal factors, oral parafunctions and temporomandibular disorders: A case control study. Int J Dent Oral Health 2019;5(4). DOI: 10.16966/2378-7090.295.
  12. Mickeviciute E, Baltrusaityte A, Pileicikiene G. The relationship between pathological wear of teeth and temporomandibular joint dysfunction. Stomatologija 2017;19(1):3–9. PMID: 29243678.
  13. Lee KS, Jha N, Kim YJ. Risk factor assessments of temporomandibular disorders via machine learning. Sci Rep 2021;11(1):19802. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-98837-5.
  14. Meloto CB, Slade GD, Lichtenwalter RN, et al. Clinical predictors of persistent temporomandibular disorder in people with first-onset temporomandibular disorder: A prospective case-control study. J Am Dent Assoc 2019;150(7):572–581. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2019.03.023.
  15. List T, Jensen RH. Temporomandibular disorders: Old ideas and new concepts. Cephalalgia 2017;37(7):692–704. DOI: 10.1177/0333102416686302.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.