Early diagnosis of temporomandibular joint involvement in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a pilot study comparing clinical examination and ultrasound to magnetic resonance imaging

OBJECTIVES: To study the validity of both rheumatological and orthodontic examinations and ultrasound (US) as screening methods for early diagnosis of TMJ arthritis against the gold standard MRI. METHODS: Thirty consecutive juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients were included in this pilot study. Rheumatological and orthodontic examinations as well as US were performed within 1 month of the MRI in a blinded fashion. Joint effusion and/or increased contrast enhancement of synovium or bone were considered signs of active arthritis on MRI. RESULTS: A total of 19/30 (63%) patients and 33/60 (55%) joints had signs of TMJ involvement on MRI. This was associated with condylar deformity in 9/19 (47%) patients and 15/33 (45%) joints. Rheumatological, orthodontic and US examinations correctly diagnosed 11 (58%), 9 (47%) and 6 (33%) patients, respectively, with active TMJ arthritis, but misdiagnosed 8 (42%), 10 (53%) and 12 (67%) patients, respectively, as having no signs of inflammation. The best predictor for active arthritis on MRI was a reduced maximum mouth opening. CONCLUSION: None of the methods tested was able to reliably predict the presence or absence of MRI-proven inflammation in the TMJ in our cohort of JIA patients. US was the least useful of all methods tested to exclude active TMJ arthritis.

Maxillary canine impaction in orthodontic patients with and without agenesis: A cross-sectional radiographic study

ABSTRACT Objective: To assess potential associations between maxillary canine impaction (MCI) and agenesis status as well as between MCI and gender. Materials and Methods: The records of 182 orthodontic patients with agenesis (excluding the third molars) and 630 orthodontic patients without agenesis were examined. Diagnosis of MCI was based on pretreatment panoramic radiographs. Maxillary canines that had not erupted as a result of physical barrier or deflection in the eruption path at the dental age of at least 12 years were considered impacted. Logistic regression analysis was used to test for the associations of interest. Results: MCI was detected in 5.6% (n  =  35) of the nonagenesis group (28 female and 7 male participants) and in 18.1% (n  =  33) of the agenesis group (20 female and 13 male participants). Bilateral impaction was detected in 12 patients (34.3%) of the nonagenesis group and in 11 patients (33.3%) of the agenesis group. There was evidence that maxillary lateral incisor agenesis (odds ratio  =  5.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-10.5, P < .001) and second premolar agenesis (odds ratio  =  2.6, 95% CI 1.0-6.6, P  =  .042) were significant MCI predictors after adjusting for gender. The odds of MCI were 69% higher in female versus male subjects after adjusting for agenesis status (95% CI 0.97-2.92, P  =  .063). Conclusions: This study indicates that there is evidence that agenesis status is a strong predictor of MCI, whereas gender is a weak predictor of MCI. Caution should be exercised in interpreting the results because of the observational nature of the present study.

Subjective and objective perception of orthodontic treatment need: a systematic review

The aim of this work was to investigate the published evidence on the comparison of self-perception and diagnosis of orthodontic treatment need. A search of Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Scopus databases, and archives of two orthodontic journals was carried out from January 1966 to August 2011 by the two authors using Medical Subject Heading terms. Studies that investigated solely either self-perception of orthodontic need by laypersons or assessment of orthodontic need by professionals were excluded from the data analysis. The methodological soundness of each study and the aggregate level of evidence were evaluated according to predetermined criteria. Moderate level of evidence, the relatively highest grade, was assigned to 9.1 per cent of the 22 studies, finally included in the data analysis. The overall evidence level provided by the evaluated publications was rated as limited. However, the existing body of evidence indicated a highly variable association between self-perception of orthodontic treatment need and orthodontist's assessment. Future controlled studies with well-defined samples and common assessment methodology will clarify further the relationship between perception of treatment need by laypersons and orthodontists and enhance international comparison and development of health care strategies.