The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 5 ( October, 2010 ) > List of Articles


Temporomandibular Disorders: A Report of 124 Patients

Reynaldo Leite Martins-Junior, Antonio Jose Garcia Palma, Emilio Jose Marquardt, Thais Monteiro de Barros Gondin, Florence de Carvalho Kerber

Citation Information : Martins-Junior RL, Palma AJ, Marquardt EJ, de Barros Gondin TM, de Carvalho Kerber F. Temporomandibular Disorders: A Report of 124 Patients. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010; 11 (5):71-78.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-11-5-71

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-01-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2010; The Author(s).



This study aims to present both the features of 124 consecutive patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and the results of a reversible, conservative, and low-tech treatment.

Methods and Materials

One hundred fifty-eight records of consecutive patients treated in School of Dentistry at the Univag-University Center in Varzea Grande-MT, Brazil, 124 of whom were considered TMD patients, were examined. The following data were obtained: gender, age, main complaint, diagnosis, co-morbidities, type of treatment performed, and treatment results. The patients who received a successful treatment were contacted for reevaluation four to six years after the conclusion of treatment.


Pain was the main complaint for 92.7 percent of the patients. The majority of patients were female (female:male ratio of 4.1 :1), with a peak age range between 20 and 30 years. Roughly 59.7 percent of the patients were diagnosed as having a muscular TMD, 12.9 percent as an articular TMD, and 27.4 percent as a mixed TMD. The success rate for treatment was 91.7 percent, and there was a tendency toward the long-term maintenance of good results.


The features of the 124 TMD patients treated were similar to those reported in the literature with regard to gender, age, and diagnostic prevalence. Most of the disorders were of a muscular origin, and there was a predominance of women between 20 and 30 years of age. The conservative, reversible, and low-tech treatment success rate for TMD can reach values above 90 percent. Therefore, there is no need for invasive, irreversible, expensive, or high-tech treatments for the majority of patients.

Clinical Significance

The majority of TMD patients can benefit from reversible, conservative, and low-tech treatments such as parafunction control and therapeutic exercises that can be performed by any clinician once an accurate diagnosis has been made.


Martins-Junior RL, Palma AJG, Marquardt EJ, Gondin TMB, Kerber FC. Temporomandibular disorders: A report of 124 Patients. J Contemp Dent Pract [Internet]. 201 O October; 11 (5):071-078. Available from: issue5-martins-junior

PDF Share
  1. Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders: review, criteria, examinations and specifications, critique. J Craniomandib Disord. 1992; 6(4):301-55.
  2. The changing field of temporomandibular disorders: what dentists need to know. J Can Dent Assoc. 2009; 75(1):49-53.
  3. Epidemiology of temporomandibular disorders: implications for the investigation of etiologic factors. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1997; 8(3):291-305.
  4. An epidemiologic comparison of pain complaints. Pain. 1988; 32(2):173-83.
  5. Use of the Fonseca's questionnaire to assess the prevalence and severity of temporomandibular disorders in Brazilian dental undergraduates. Braz Dent J. 2007; 18(2):163-7.
  6. Signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders in Nigerian adult patients with and without occlusal tooth wear. Community Dent Health. 2007; 24(3):156-60.
  7. Prevalence of myofascial temporomandibular disorder in US community women. J Oral Rehabil. 2008; 35(11):801-9.
  8. The role of orthodontics in temporomandibular disorders. J Oral Rehabil. 2010; 37(6):411-29.
  9. The etiology of temporomandibular disorders: implications for treatment. J Orofac Pain. 2001; 15(2):93-105; discussion 106-16.
  10. Temporomandibular disorders: the role of occlusion, TMJ imaging, and electronic devices. A diagnostic update. J Am Coll Dent. 1991; 58(3):4-10.
  11. Devices for the diagnosis and treatment of temporomandibular disorders. Part I: Introduction, scientific evidence, and jaw tracking. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 63(2): 198-201.
  12. Temporomandibular disorders: diagnosis, management, education, and research. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990;120(3):253, 255, 257 passim.
  13. Temporomandibular disorder: efficacy of an oral habit reversal treatment program. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 1996; 27(3):245-55.
  14. Randomized clinical trial of primary treatment for temporomandibular joint disk displacement without reduction and without osseous changes: a combination of NSAIDs and mouth-opening exercise versus no treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2001; 91(6):671-5.
  15. Effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with myofascial pain dysfunction syndrome. J Oral Rehabil. 2002; 29(4):362-8.
  16. Counseling and physical therapy as treatment for myofascial pain of the masticatory system. J Orofac Pain. 2003; 17(1):42-9.
  17. The additional value of a home physical therapy regimen versus patient education only for the treatment of myofascial pain of the jaw muscles: short-term results of a randomized clinical trial. J Orofac Pain. 2004; 18(2):114-25.
  18. Short-term efficacy of physical therapy compared to splint therapy in treatment of arthrogenous TMD. J Oral Rehabil. 2007; 34(11):807-13.
  19. Self-care behaviors associated with myofascial temporomandibular disorder pain. J Orofac Pain. 2007; 21(3):194-202.
  20. Change in the number of occlusal contacts following splint therapy in patients with a temporomandibular disorder (TMD). Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2008; 16(3):98-103.
  21. Evaluation of different occlusal splints and counselling in the management of myofascial pain dysfunction. J Oral Rehabil. 2009; 36(2):79-85.
  22. Natural course of untreated symptomatic temporomandibular joint disc displacement without reduction. J Dent Res. 1998; 77(2):361-5.
  23. Regression to the mean in treated versus untreated chronic pain. Pain. 1992; 50(3):281-5.
  24. Regression to the mean: what it is and how to deal with it. Int J Epidemiol. 2005; 34(1):215-20.
  25. Response of patients with myofascial pain-dysfunction syndrome to mock equilibration. J Am Dent Assoc. 1976; 92(4):755-8.
  26. How are they related? J Orofac Pain. 2009; 23(2):93-107.
  27. Comparison of a verbal numeric rating scale with the visual analogue scale for the measurement of acute pain. Emerg Med (Fremantle). 2003; 15(5-6):441-6.
  28. Physical diagnosis of the head and neck. In: Silverman S Jr, Eversole LR, Truelove EL, editors. Essentials of oral medicine. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: BC Decker;. 2001. p. 6-26.
  29. A three-year follow-up of patients with reciprocal temporomandibular joint clicking. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1987; 63(5):530-3.
  30. Long-term status of TMJ clicking in patients with myofascial pain and dysfunction. J Am Dent Assoc. 1988; 117(3):461-5.
  31. A 20-year follow-up of signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders and malocclusions in subjects with and without orthodontic treatment in childhood. Angle Orthod. 2003; 73(2):109-15.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.