Next Article in Journal
A Peculiar CLL Case with Complex Chromosome 6 Rearrangements and Refinement of All Breakpoints at the Gene Level by Genomic Array: A Case Report
Next Article in Special Issue
Current Clinical Research Directions on Temporomandibular Joint Intra-Articular Injections: A Mapping Review
Previous Article in Journal
Leukocyte Telomere Length and Neuregulin-4 Levels in Female Patients with Acromegaly: The Relationship between Disease Activity and Body Fat Distribution
Previous Article in Special Issue
Prevalence of Clinical Signs and Symptoms of Temporomandibular Joint Disorders Registered in the EUROTMJ Database: A Prospective Study in a Portuguese Center
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/jcm12124109
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Prevalence of Temporomandibular Disorders Based on a Shortened Symptom Questionnaire of the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders and Its Screening Reliability for Children and Adolescents Aged 7–14 Years

by
Mathias Rentsch
1,2,
Aleksandra Zumbrunn Wojczyńska
1,
Luigi M. Gallo
1 and
Vera Colombo
1,*
1
Clinic of Masticatory Disorders, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland
2
Public-School Dental Services of the City of Zurich, 8002 Zurich, Switzerland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(12), 4109; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12124109
Submission received: 24 May 2023 / Revised: 8 June 2023 / Accepted: 16 June 2023 / Published: 17 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Insights into the Diagnosis and Treatment of Temporomandibular Joint Diseases)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The prevalence and adequacy of diagnostic approaches for temporomandibular disorders (TMD) in children and adolescents are still matters of debate. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of TMD and oral habits in children and adolescents aged 7–14 years and evaluate the consistency between self-reported TMD symptoms and clinical findings using a shortened Axis I of Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD). Children (aged 7–10) and adolescents (aged 11–14) of both sexes were invited to participate in this study (n = 1468). Descriptive statistics for all observed variables and Mann–Whitney U-Tests for the clinical examination were performed. A total of 239 subjects participated in the study (response rate 16.3%). The self-reported prevalence of TMD was found to be 18.8%. The most frequently reported oral habit was nail biting (37.7%), followed by clenching (32.2%) and grinding (25.5%). Self-reported headache increased with age, while clenching and grinding decreased. Based on the answers to the DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire, subgroups of asymptomatic and symptomatic participants (n = 59; 24.7%) were established and randomly selected for the clinical examination (f = 30). The shortened Symptom Questionnaire showed a sensitivity of 0.556 and a specificity of 0.719 for pain during the clinical examination. Although the Symptom Questionnaire exhibited high specificity (0.933), its sensitivity (0.286) for temporomandibular joint sounds was low. Disc displacement with reduction (10.2%) and myalgia (6.8%) were the most common diagnoses. In conclusion, the self-reported prevalence of TMD in children and adolescents in this study was comparable to that reported in the literature for adults. However, the accuracy of the shortened Symptom Questionnaire as a screening tool for TMD-related pain and jaw sounds in children and adolescents was found to be low.

1. Introduction

Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) is a collective term describing dysfunction and pain in the masticatory muscles, as well as in the temporomandibular joints (TMJs) and related structures [1]. Subjects with TMD often exhibit a limited range of motion, joint noises, pain, or a combination of these symptoms [2,3]. TMDs are believed to have a complex, multifactorial etiology. According to recent literature, macrotraumas caused by impact injuries to the chin resulting from accidents [4,5,6], as well as microtraumas due to oral parafunctional habits such as clenching or bruxism [7], are considered etiological factors. Additionally, multiple or frequent oral parafunctions are found to be associated with the incidence of TMD [8]. Psychosocial factors such as stress, anxiety, insomnia, and depression [9,10,11,12] can significantly contribute to the development of TMD. For example, anxiety and stress can lead to increased muscle tension, central sensitization, and bruxism, while also reducing coping strategies [12,13,14]. Furthermore, incorporating psychosocial factors into the treatment strategy has been shown to improve the outcome of TMD treatment [15,16]. Systemic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus erythematosus, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and psoriatic arthritis [17] are also involved in the development of TMD. Comorbid pain, including pre-existing lower back pain or genital pain conditions, sleep disturbance or smoking, has been identified as an important predictor for TMD [18].
TMD prevalence in adults is estimated to be in the range of 5–50% [1,19,20]. TMD may occur at any age; however, the peak occurrence is between 20 and 40 years of age [19], and women are approximately twice as likely to be affected than men [21,22]. Furthermore, the congruence between self-reported TMD symptoms and diagnosed TMD shows a sensitivity of 0.43–0.49 and a specificity of 0.93–0.95 [23,24]. Reported TMD prevalence strongly depends on diagnostic criteria, clinical examination protocols, study population, and training of the investigators [21,25,26]. The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) clinical examination tool, published in 1992 [27], became a gold standard in the diagnosis of TMD and was used for adults but also for adolescents and children with good reliability [28] until the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) clinical examination protocol replaced the RDC/TMD guidelines in 2014. DC/TMD is a validated screening tool for detecting TMD as well as for differentiating common pain-related TMDs in adults [29]. However, the DC/TMD examination has not yet been validated for use in children and adolescents.
The prevalence of TMD in children has already been investigated in previous studies using different diagnostic systems and has been shown to be similar to that in adults [30,31,32]. In contrast to adults, mixed results on sex differences [33,34,35,36,37] were obtained, and no differences in the mandibular range of motion for children with and without TMD were found [38,39]. Oral habits (i.e., biting nails, clenching or grinding teeth) in children and adolescents were as prevalent as in adults [34,40,41]. However, only a few studies were based on the DC/TMD protocol [33,36,42,43]. Only one study evaluated the accuracy of the DC/TMD protocol for TMD diagnosis in children aged 8–12 years, which showed a lower accuracy than in adults [28]. Lately, an international group of TMD experts tried to find a consensus on the DC/TMD Axis I using a Delphi study. It was agreed appropriate questionnaires about general health and demographics should be created for children (<10 years old) and adolescents (between 10 and 19 years old). Three screening questions (3Q/TMD) [44] instead of the TMD pain screener [45] should be used for both age groups. The Symptom Questionnaire should be rephrased and adapted for each group. Recommended revisions of the clinical examination contained the abandonment of mandatory commands, a different number of palpation sites, and a reduced threshold for limited mouth opening [46].
The main objective of this observational study was to conduct a clinical quantitative assessment of representative parameters for TMD in a sample of children and adolescents between the ages of 7 and 14 to evaluate the reliability of a shortened DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire as a screening tool for clinical examination. The secondary objective was to estimate the self-reported prevalence of TMD in this specific age group using the collected data.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Recruitment and Study Participants

The city of Zurich, Switzerland, offers a yearly dental check-up free of charge for all children and adolescents between 2 and 18 years of age. Whole school classes attend one of the six public school dental clinics depending on their location. Recruitment and examinations in the present study were conducted in Zurich between August 2019 and February 2020. This study involved children (aged 7–10) and adolescents (aged 11–14) and was performed in one of the public school dental clinics of the city of Zurich.
For recruitment, two to three weeks prior to the visit to the dental clinic, second-, fourth-, sixth-, and eighth-grade teachers were given envelopes to distribute to the pupils. Each envelope contained the study information, an informed consent form, and a questionnaire about TMD symptoms. Pupils took the envelopes home to decide on participation in accordance with their legal guardians. Teachers were instructed to collect the envelopes and return them to the dental clinic on the day of the visit.
On examination day, two groups were created based on the answers given to the questionnaires. The symptomatic group included subjects with any pain in the jaw, temple, anteriorly to or inside the ear, and/or headache that included the temporal areas, and activities that influenced any headache they had experienced in the last 30 days. The remaining subjects (including subjects with pain-free joint noises) were assigned to the asymptomatic group (Figure 1). Afterward, only one child or adolescent of a class was clinically examined after the normal dental check-up. First, a symptomatic participant was randomly chosen for the test group. If the symptomatic participant was missing in the class, an asymptomatic participant was randomly chosen for the control group (Figure 1).

2.2. The DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire

A shortened German version of the DC/TMD questionnaire (Table 1) was used to evaluate the presence of TMD signs or symptoms [47]. All main questions about pain, headache, jaw joint noises, and closed as well as open locking of the jaw were included unaltered. Six questions were skipped due to ease and understanding. In order to evaluate the prevalence of oral habits, five additional questions about oral habits were added. The shortened DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire and the answers were discussed with the participants prior to the clinical examination to detect divergent answers.

2.3. Clinical Examiner (Calibration)

The examiner (MR, pediatric dentist employed by the school dental clinic) underwent training by an orofacial pain specialist with expertise in DC/TMD examination at the University of Zurich (AZW). The training included theory and palpation techniques first on adults and then on an eight-year-old boy at the University of Zurich.

2.4. The Clinical DC/TMD Examination

The clinical examination was performed according to the DC/TMD Examination Protocol. Maximum assisted opening, termination of movement, and the examination of supplemental muscle pain with palpation were skipped to ease and avoid discomfort (Table 1). Incisal relationships, maximum opening, and jaw movements were measured with a ruler. TMJ noises were detected bilaterally via palpation. Calibration of the palpation pressure was conducted using commercially available electronic scales [48]. The use of mandatory DC/TMD commands was omitted due to unimpaired results [49] and better understanding for children and adolescents.

2.5. Diagnosis of TMD

TMD diagnosis was made based on the DC/TMD Diagnostic Decision Tree and, accordingly, the Diagnostic Criteria Table. The shortened DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire (Table 2) and the condensed DC/TMD clinical examination were incorporated into the TMD diagnosis. The diagnoses of intra-articular joint disorders were made based on the clinical findings.

2.6. Data Analysis and Statistics

The questionnaire was analyzed with descriptive statistics using crosstabulations (e.g., age group, sex). The data were summarized and visualized with tables and diagrams. In a further step, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used to correlate the data of the questionnaire with sex, age group, and test and control sample. Results of the clinical examination were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Mean values and standard deviations were obtained for all parameters in all conditions observed. Nonparametric Mann–Whitney tests for independent samples were used to assess the differences in the quantitative results of clinical examinations (overjet, overbite, pain-free mouth opening, maximum unassisted mouth opening, laterotrusion, protrusion) between test and control subjects globally in both age groups. If a significant difference was found, pairwise tests for the variable were performed on sex and age group. The level of significance was set at α = 0.05. Microsoft Excel (Version 2019, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and SPSS (Version 26.0., IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) for Windows were used to perform statistical analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Study Participants

A total of 1468 letters were sent out to 71 classes of four different levels. Of these, 239 children and adolescents (16.3%) agreed to participate in the study. In 8 of the 71 invited classes (178 students), the study envelopes were not delivered in time for the evaluation of potential participants by their teachers. In 5 of 71 classes, none of the participants gave consent to participate. Subjects were divided into two age groups for subsequent analysis: 7–10 years (second and fourth grade, n = 137); 11–14 years (sixth and eighth grade, n = 102).

3.2. Symptom Questionnaire

A total of 239 subjects completed the shortened DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire. The entire study sample consisted of 114 boys (47.7%) and 125 girls (52.3%). The mean age of all participants was 10.0 ± 1.9 (range 7–14 years). Almost 19% of the participants reported that they were currently suffering from TMD symptoms. Sixty-six subjects (27.6%) stated that they had experienced pain in the jaw, temple, or anteriorly to or inside the ear on either side earlier in their life. In addition, 32 subjects (13.4%) described pain that “comes and goes” in the past 30 days, and jaw activities modified the pain in almost a third of the subjects. Temporal headache in the last 30 days was reported by 51 of 239 children and adolescents (21.3%). In almost 30% of these cases, chewing and/or habits modified the headache. Pearson’s correlation coefficient of 0.944 showed an increase in the prevalence of headage with age (Figure 2).
TMJ noises occurring in the last 30 days were reported by 26 individuals (10.9%). At least one oral habit was found in 160 subjects (66.9%). The most frequently reported oral habit was nail biting, which was found in 90 pupils (37.7%), followed by clenching in 77 pupils (32.2%), and grinding teeth in 61 pupils (25.5%). Self-reported teeth grinding and clenching decreased with age. Detailed information about the answers to the shortened Symptom Questionnaire and oral habits can be found in Table 2.

3.3. Clinical Examination

Of the 59 subjects examined clinically, 29 were boys (49.2%) and 30 were girls (50.8%), with a mean age of 10.0 ± 2.3 years (range 7–14). The age distribution of the subjects was as follows: 35 subjects (59.3%) in the younger age group and 24 subjects (40.7%) in the older age group. Of the whole sample, 35 (59.3%) asymptomatic subjects belonged to the controls and 24 (40.7%) symptomatic subjects to the test group. No subject reported changes in the given answers in the Symptom Questionnaire.

3.3.1. Self-Reported Localization of Pain

A total of 14 (23.7%) participants (control: n = 0; test: n = 14) reported pain in the temporomandibular region. Among them, the masseter muscle was indicated as a site of pain eight times, the temporal muscle four times, and the TMJs eight times. Headache was indicated by 20 (33.9%) pupils (control: n = 4; test: n = 16). Nine subjects indicated the temporal region (control: n = 2; test = 7), ten (control: n = 2; test: n = 8) indicated other regions, and one test subject reported headache in both the temporal region and other regions.

3.3.2. Jaw Motion and TMJ Sounds

Both pain-free mouth opening and maximum unassisted mouth opening ranged between 35 and 61 mm. The mean measured values and standard deviation for mouth opening and lateral and protrusive movements divided by age, sex, and control and test sample are shown in Table 3. The Mann–Whitney test revealed significantly larger pain-free mouth opening (p = 0.025) and maximum unassisted opening (p = 0.015) in the test group than in the control group. Maximum unassisted opening increased significantly with age (p = 0.014). Sex did not seem to have an influence on maximum pain-free and unassisted mouth opening. Familiar pain was reported by five children (control: n = 2; test: n = 3) during opening movements and by three test subjects during horizontal movements.
Jaw joint noises occurred in 14 subjects (23.7%); in six of these cases (control: n = 4; test: n = 2), a sound was heard by the child and detected by the examiner, and in eight cases (control: n = 7; test: n = 1), the sound was only detected by the examiner.

3.3.3. Palpation of Muscles and TMJs

Pain during palpation of the masseter and temporal muscle was indicated by 20 subjects (control: n = 10; test: n = 10). Additionally, three test subjects (12.5%) reported familiar pain, while one control pupil (2.9%) showed familiar pain during muscle palpation. During palpation of the TMJs, 23 children reported pain (control: n = 9; test: n = 14). In addition, six of them (control: n = 1; test: n = 5) indicated that they had familiar pain. The most frequently reported site of pain during palpation was the lateral pole of the TMJs.

3.4. Comparison between Symptom Questionnaire and Self-Reported Localization of Pain

The 41 subjects examined (control: n = 35; test: n = 6) who stated that they did not experience episodic pain in the Symptom Questionnaire also reported no pain location prior to the examination. However, four subjects who reported episodic pain in the questionnaire did not indicate any pain location. The remaining 14 test subjects localized pain in both the questionnaire and the examination.
Three pupils (5.1%) provided divergent answers between the Symptom Questionnaire and self-reported headache localization on examination day, whereas the other responses were consistent.

3.5. Comparison of Symptom Questionnaire and Clinical Examination

The sensitivity and specificity for the pain answers in the Symptom Questionnaire and the clinical findings were 0.556 and 0.719. During the clinical examination, 34.3% of the controls and 62.5% of the test subjects reported pain. Pain during palpation of the masseter muscle, temporal muscle, and/or TMJs was recorded in 14 of 24 pupils (58.3%) in the test group. In addition to pain during palpation, six children also showed pain during mandibular movements. Only one child presented pain during the opening phases alone. Furthermore, 12 control subjects (34.3%) reported pain at palpation and 5 (14.3%) during jaw movements. No pain during the clinical examination was found in 23 control subjects and 9 test subjects (Figure 3).
Sensitivity and specificity for joint sounds in the Symptom Questionnaire were 0.286 and 0.933. Subjects reporting joint sounds indeed showed a clicking sound during movement in four out of seven cases. A sound was also recorded in 10 of 52 pupils (19.2%) that did not report experiencing sounds in the questionnaire. Moreover, 8 of these 10 pupils heard no sound during the examination, even when indicated by the examiner.

3.6. Comparison between Self-Reported Pain Localization and Clinical Examination

The sensitivity and specificity of positive pain localization were 0.407 and 0.906. A total of 64.4% of the pupils who indicated no pain location also felt no pain during the examination. Agreement between self-reported pain localization and clinical examination was achieved in 81% of cases for the masseter and/or TMJ structures and in 25% for the temporal muscle. Additionally, we combined positive pain localization and temporal headache localization to verify the accuracy of the temporal muscle. As a result, we improved sensitivity but weakened specificity. For the combined measure, we observed a sensitivity and specificity of 0.484 and 0.857.

3.7. Diagnoses

Ten individuals had one or more TMD diagnoses. Disc displacement with reduction in five subjects was the most common diagnosis, followed by local myalgia, which was reported in two subjects. Arthralgia was diagnosed in one case, whereas two subjects showed combined diagnoses: in one case local myalgia, arthralgia, and disc displacement with reduction, and in the other myofascial pain with referral combined with arthralgia (Table 4).

4. Discussion

4.1. Prevalence of Self-Reported Oral Habits and TMD

The aim of the present study was to estimate the prevalence of oral habits, self-reported TMD symptoms, and TMD diagnosed using a shortened German version of the DC/TMD. The most frequently reported oral habit was nail biting, followed by teeth clenching and grinding, both of which decreased with age. Conversely, self-reported headache was more frequent with increasing age. The prevalence of self-reported TMD was comparable to the adult population or even slightly lower. Furthermore, disc displacement with reduction was the most common diagnosis, followed by myalgia.

4.1.1. Oral Habits

Nail biting was found to be the most frequently mentioned oral habit, followed by teeth grinding and clenching, which decreased with age. Our results agree with those of other studies conducted on similar age samples, which showed a prevalence of nail biting around 44–58% and 10–32% for clenching/grinding [34,35,50]. The importance of oral habits for the onset of TMD and the cause-and-effect relationship need to be re-examined in larger longitudinal studies [51,52].

4.1.2. Headache

Our results indicate an increase in headache with age, which corresponds with a nationwide Austrian study that showed that the incidence of headache is associated with older age in pediatric subjects [53]. Furthermore, seven out of ten subjects diagnosed with TMD according to DC/TMD criteria reported suffering from headache in our study. A prospective study showed that the presence of other pain conditions (e.g., headache) at baseline is a predictive factor for the onset of facial pain and TMD in 11-year-olds [54]. Moreover, comorbidity between TMD and headache is bidirectional for both conditions [55]. Therefore, children and adolescents with headache should be screened early for signs of TMD.

4.1.3. Prevalence of Self-Reported TMD and Diagnosis of TMD

The prevalence of pain-related TMD in our study was 18.8%, in agreement with a Swedish systematic review in which the prevalence ranged from 7.3% to 30.4% [30], and with a Dutch cross-sectional questionnaire survey with a prevalence of self-reported TMD of 21.6% [35]. Compared with adults, the prevalence of TMD in children appears to be similar or slightly lower [21,30,56]. The most frequent diagnosis was disc displacement with reduction, followed by myalgia. Even though our results may be compromised because of the shortened Symptom Questionnaire and the clinical examination, they are consistent with other European studies [33,34,50,57]. In contrast, other studies from Brazil, China, and Saudi Arabia found that myofascial pain was the most common diagnosis [2,37,58]. Therefore, ethnic discrepancies cannot be ruled out, as has also been observed in the adult population in the United States [21]. Nevertheless, because of the different forms of clinical examination and different diagnostic criteria, the results are not completely comparable.

4.2. Reliability of the DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire

In addition to TMD prevalence, we analyzed the reliability of a self-completed Symptom Questionnaire as a screening tool in children and adolescents aged 7–14 years. Our main results show low sensitivity and specificity of the Symptom Questionnaire for pain. Compared to the given answers in the Symptom Questionnaire, specificity for pain during the clinical examination increased when the subject was directly asked about the location of pain, while sensitivity decreased. Pain during palpation was mainly found in the lateral TMJ pole or in the masseter muscle, while several controls also reported pain. Most of the subjects who indicated pain in the masseter muscle and/or TMJs also experienced pain during the examination, while for the temporal muscle, this was the case in only a quarter of the subjects. Sensitivity for joint noises was low, while specificity was high. TMJ noises occurred in almost a quarter of the sample, whereas the examiner alone heard sounds in half of the subjects.

4.2.1. DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire

Our findings show that the reliability of the shortened DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire in children is lower than for the full version in adults. Nevertheless, our findings are comparable with a German study that used the full version for children aged 8–12 [42]. Based on history and clinical examination, the DC/TMD shows good sensitivity and specificity for TMD in adults [29]. The discrepancy between the two groups could be explained by differences in pain perception [59] and in pain memory [60]. Furthermore, the unequal comprehension and language ability of the subjects due to their development [61] could have led to a misunderstanding of the questions or the clinical examination.
Therefore, our findings indicate that the shortened DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire is not an adequate screening tool for TMD in children and adolescents. In conclusion, the TMD pain screener [45] presumably shows similar results because the Symptom Questionnaire includes its items. The three validated screening questions (3Q/TMD) are used in adults and adolescents with good reliability [44,62,63]. Although the screening tool has not yet been tested for children, its use has recently been recommended for both age groups [46]. Further studies are needed to validate the 3Q/TMD in children.
Despite low reliability, we cautiously recommend the use of the DC/TMD assessment protocol as a reference template in general practice. The current DC/TMD protocol can serve as a scheme for dentists to minimize the number of undiagnosed cases until new guidelines and assessment tools are established. The lack of a standardized protocol demonstrates the need for a validated screening and examination tool for children and adolescents. An international consortium of TMD experts is therefore currently working on developing an adapted and validated DC/TMD Axis I and II protocol specifically designed for this particular age group [46,64].

4.2.2. Mouth Opening and Horizontal Movements

The older age group showed significantly larger unassisted mouth opening than the younger age group. Additionally, test subjects also showed significantly larger unassisted mouth opening than controls. A Swiss study measured maximum unassisted mouth opening in 20,719 pupils (F: 10,060 with a median age range of 9.9 years (3.3–18.3); M: 10,659 with a median age range of 10.0 years (2.8–18.7)). Up to the age of 13, no significant sex differences were found. Later, between the ages of 14 and 17, boys showed greater mouth opening than girls. In summary, their study showed an increase in mouth opening with age, but with a wide range within children of the same age group, most likely due to different craniofacial morphologies and skeletal ages. Therefore, they recommended observing individual changes in maximum mouth opening in children at high risk for TMJ afflictions [65]. Our results of greater unassisted mouth opening in the test group could be explained by the wide mouth opening range within children of the same age group and the differences in craniofacial morphology and skeletal age. Not examining maximum assisted opening might negatively affect the sensitivity and specificity for myalgia and arthralgia.

4.2.3. TMJ Noises

More than half of the children with TMJ noises were not aware of any sounds, although they were present during movements, as identified by the examiner. Our findings are consistent with those of a German research group [42] which found that only 3.2% of children were aware of TMJ sounds. Therefore, they suggest that only examiner confirmation should be considered in cases where an examination is needed to diagnose degenerative joint diseases, although patient confirmation is required for the diagnosis [42]. The sensitivity for the diagnosis of disc displacement with reduction in adults is 0.34, while the specificity is 0.92 [29]. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves sensitivity by up to 78% [66]. Furthermore, a retrospective study of 56 patients with multiple sclerosis without TMD symptoms showed deviated disc position in 12% of cases (Schuknecht B, Kuhn F, MRI Zürich, unpublished normative data 2017). Therefore, inconsistency between self-reported symptoms and clinical signs should be considered when diagnosing disc displacement with reduction in adults and children.

4.2.4. Palpation of Muscle and TMJs

Pupils in the control and test sample overall reported pain during palpation mainly in the masseter and TMJs, with good congruence between the location of self-reported pain and clinical examination, whereas there seemed to be a discrepancy for the temporal muscle. Therefore, we pooled pain in the temporal muscle and headache in the temporal region to see if we were able to increase sensitivity. The improved results suggest that children and adolescents are unaware of the difference between pain in the temporal region and headache in the temporal region. When defining new questionnaires, this result should be taken into consideration.
Furthermore, although subjects reported no pain in the questionnaire, almost 30% experienced pain during palpation and a non-negligible number of controls reported familiar pain. Similar results were found in a German study, which showed that 36.2% of the children experienced pain during palpation, although they reported no pain previously [42]. Therefore, the question arises whether the amount of pressure applied is too high or whether new examination questions appropriate for children with higher sensitivity and specificity should be formulated.

4.3. Limitations

The main limitation of this study was the use of a shortened version of the existing DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire and examination protocol, which has not yet been validated for children and adolescents [29]. An international consortium of TMD specialists recently recommended some adjustments to the adult version of the DC/TMD [46]. Although most of the recently published suggestions have already been included in our study, we did not use a modified Symptom Questionnaire adapted for each age group. Instead, we shortened the existing DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire and examination protocol. Regardless of the alterations, the results should maintain their comparability with other studies, and the impact on the DC/TMD Diagnostic Decision Tree and Table should be minimized. Three of six skipped questions from the DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire and two of three skipped examinations did not influence the DC/TMD Diagnostic Decision Tree and Table in our study. Intra-articular joint disorders could not be clearly specified in one case (participant number 223) because of the omission of three questions in the Symptom Questionnaire. The other five diagnoses could be correctly made after the DC/TMD Diagnostic Decision Tree and Table. Furthermore, maximum assisted opening was not examined, which might have led to false-negative (undetected) diagnoses concerning myalgia and arthralgia. Therefore, the prevalence of myalgia and arthralgia might be underestimated in our study. However, Katsikogianni et al. showed that there is no significant difference between maximum assisted or unassisted opening in children with or without pain report, and that maximum opening (assisted or unassisted) was painful for 69% of the children with pain and for 41% of the children without pain [42]. Therefore, we decided to omit this examination step to avoid discomfort and additional pain for the pupils although the results may be compromised. Despite our study limitations, our results remain comparable to the current literature [30,33,34,35,50,57].
Another limitation of this study was the number of participants due to the logistics of the study. In addition, there were some potential limitations due to the recruitment strategy. Participants were recruited indirectly by their teachers and depended on them for the delivery of the study documents on the day of the dental visit. Although the differences between children-reported and parent-reported pain were low [67], bias due to parents’ answers in the questionnaire cannot be excluded.

4.4. Implications

Early screening and diagnosis are important to avoid misinformation, to improve prevention of chronic pain, and to reduce overtreatment [68,69,70]. Moreover, orofacial pain has an individual but also a social and economic burden [71]. TMD has a strong impact on quality of life [72], and TMD patients consult several healthcare providers before seeing a TMD specialist [73,74]. In addition, treatment costs are estimated at CHF 1778 (approximately USD 1950) per patient in Switzerland, which is almost 30% of the average monthly salary. About 45% of the costs are covered by general insurance, while 55% are borne by the patient [75]. On the other hand, TMD patients show reduced productivity at work [71] and increased school absences [76]. Therefore, early screening and proper diagnosis, together with appropriate treatment, are essential for each individual and society. Dentists could play a key role because they are often the first contact and periodically check their patients through regular recall and follow-up systems. The lack of a standardized screening and diagnostic tool with high accuracy for children complicates the work of the general dentist. We hope that our findings will help improve awareness of the signs and symptoms of TMD in children and adolescents among clinicians and emphasize the need for standardized screening and examination tools. In addition, we hope that our results contain useful information for the creation of a new assessment protocol.
Another important aspect of TMD is its large intra-individual fluctuation during the affected person’s lifetime [77,78], which demonstrates the need for longitudinal studies during childhood and adolescence. Further follow-up studies can better elucidate the development of TMD in relation to age.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the accuracy of the self-completed shortened DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire is low. The reason for this is either our adjustments, which may have compromised the diagnostic process and the TMD diagnosis itself, or the fact that neither the Symptom Questionnaire or the clinical examination protocol is suitable for children and adolescents. Standardized screening and examination tools are therefore required for these specific age groups. Dentists should be aware of the relatively high prevalence of TMD in children and adolescents. Furthermore, TMJ sounds are often not perceived by subjects in this age group. The masseter and TMJs show good congruence between self-reported pain location and clinical examination. Children and adolescents tend not to be able to distinguish between temporal pain and temporal headache. Disc displacement with reduction is the most common type of TMD among pediatric subjects, followed by myalgia.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.Z.W., L.M.G., M.R. and V.C.; methodology, M.R.; software, V.C.; validation, A.Z.W., L.M.G., M.R. and V.C.; formal analysis, M.R.; investigation, M.R.; resources, M.R. and V.C.; data curation, M.R. and V.C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.R.; writing—review and editing, A.Z.W., L.M.G., M.R. and V.C.; visualization, M.R.; supervision, L.M.G. and V.C.; project administration, L.M.G. and V.C.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Review Board of the State of Zurich (KEK-ZH, no. 2019-01361).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects (or their legal guardians if the participant was younger than 14 years old) involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all participants and the City of Zurich, Switzerland, for allowing our study to be performed.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. LeResche, L. Epidemiology of temporomandibular disorders: Implications for the investigation of etiologic factors. Crit. Rev. Oral Biol. Med. 1997, 8, 291–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Al-Khotani, A.; Naimi-Akbar, A.; Albadawi, E.; Ernberg, M.; Hedenberg-Magnusson, B.; Christidis, N. Prevalence of diagnosed temporomandibular disorders among Saudi Arabian children and adolescents. J. Headache Pain 2016, 17, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Laskin, D.M.; Greene, C.S.; Hylander, W.L. Temporomandibular Disorders: An Evidence-Based Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment; Quintessence Pub.: Chicago, IL, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  4. Fischer, D.J.; Mueller, B.A.; Critchlow, C.W.; LeResche, L. The association of temporomandibular disorder pain with history of head and neck injury in adolescents. J. Orofac. Pain 2006, 20, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Greco, C.M.; Rudy, T.E.; Turk, D.C.; Herlich, A.; Zaki, H.H. Traumatic onset of temporomandibular disorders: Positive effects of a standardized conservative treatment program. Clin. J. Pain 1997, 13, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Imahara, S.D.; Hopper, R.A.; Wang, J.; Rivara, F.P.; Klein, M.B. Patterns and outcomes of pediatric facial fractures in the United States: A survey of the National Trauma Data Bank. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2008, 207, 710–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Dym, H.; Israel, H. Diagnosis and treatment of temporomandibular disorders. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 2012, 56, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Ohrbach, R.; Fillingim, R.B.; Mulkey, F.; Gonzalez, Y.; Gordon, S.; Gremillion, H.; Lim, P.F.; Ribeiro-Dasilva, M.; Greenspan, J.D.; Knott, C.; et al. Clinical findings and pain symptoms as potential risk factors for chronic TMD: Descriptive data and empirically identified domains from the OPPERA case-control study. J. Pain 2011, 12, T27-45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Karibe, H.; Goddard, G.; Kawakami, T.; Aoyagi, K.; Rudd, P.; McNeill, C. Comparison of subjective symptoms among three diagnostic subgroups of adolescents with temporomandibular disorders. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2010, 20, 458–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. de Leeuw, R.; Klasser, G.D. Orofacial Pain: Guidelines for Assessment, Diagnosis, and Management; Quintessence Publishing Company, Incorporated: Hanover Park, IL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  11. List, T.; Wahlund, K.; Larsson, B. Psychosocial functioning and dental factors in adolescents with temporomandibular disorders: A case-control study. J. Orofac. Pain. 2001, 15, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Minervini, G.; Franco, R.; Marrapodi, M.M.; Mehta, V.; Fiorillo, L.; Badnjević, A.; Cervino, G.; Cicciù, M. The Association between COVID-19 Related Anxiety, Stress, Depression, Temporomandibular Disorders, and Headaches from Childhood to Adulthood: A Systematic Review. Brain Sci. 2023, 13, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fillingim, R.B.; Ohrbach, R.; Greenspan, J.D.; Knott, C.; Dubner, R.; Bair, E.; Baraian, C.; Slade, G.D.; Maixner, W. Potential psychosocial risk factors for chronic TMD: Descriptive data and empirically identified domains from the OPPERA case-control study. J. Pain 2011, 12, T46-60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Kindler, S.; Samietz, S.; Houshmand, M.; Grabe, H.J.; Bernhardt, O.; Biffar, R.; Kocher, T.; Meyer, G.; Völzke, H.; Metelmann, H.R.; et al. Depressive and anxiety symptoms as risk factors for temporomandibular joint pain: A prospective cohort study in the general population. J. Pain 2012, 13, 1188–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Dworkin, S.F.; Huggins, K.H.; Wilson, L.; Mancl, L.; Turner, J.; Massoth, D.; LeResche, L.; Truelove, E. A randomized clinical trial using research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders-axis II to target clinic cases for a tailored self-care TMD treatment program. J. Orofac. Pain 2002, 16, 48–63. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  16. Costa, Y.M.; Porporatti, A.L.; Stuginski-Barbosa, J.; Bonjardim, L.R.; Conti, P.C. Additional effect of occlusal splints on the improvement of psychological aspects in temporomandibular disorder subjects: A randomized controlled trial. Arch. Oral Biol. 2015, 60, 738–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Howard, J.A. Temporomandibular joint disorders in children. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 2013, 57, 99–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sanders, A.E.; Slade, G.D.; Bair, E.; Fillingim, R.B.; Knott, C.; Dubner, R.; Greenspan, J.D.; Maixner, W.; Ohrbach, R. General health status and incidence of first-onset temporomandibular disorder: The OPPERA prospective cohort study. J. Pain 2013, 14, T51-62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Manfredini, D.; Guarda-Nardini, L.; Winocur, E.; Piccotti, F.; Ahlberg, J.; Lobbezoo, F. Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review of axis I epidemiologic findings. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2011, 112, 453–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Prevalence of TMJD and Its Signs and Symptoms. Available online: https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/research/data-statistics/facial-pain/prevalence (accessed on 9 February 2020).
  21. Yost, O.; Liverman, C.T.; English, R.; Mackey, S.; Bond, E.C. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine: Temporomandibular Disorders: Priorities for Research and Care; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; p. 426. [Google Scholar]
  22. Slade, G.D.; Bair, E.; Greenspan, J.D.; Dubner, R.; Fillingim, R.B.; Diatchenko, L.; Maixner, W.; Knott, C.; Ohrbach, R. Signs and symptoms of first-onset TMD and sociodemographic predictors of its development: The OPPERA prospective cohort study. J. Pain 2013, 14, T20–T32.e21–e23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Bair, E.; Brownstein, N.C.; Ohrbach, R.; Greenspan, J.D.; Dubner, R.; Fillingim, R.B.; Maixner, W.; Smith, S.B.; Diatchenko, L.; Gonzalez, Y.; et al. Study protocol, sample characteristics, and loss to follow-up: The OPPERA prospective cohort study. J. Pain 2013, 14, T2–T19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Janal, M.N.; Raphael, K.G.; Nayak, S.; Klausner, J. Prevalence of myofascial temporomandibular disorder in US community women. J. Oral Rehabil. 2008, 35, 801–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. List, T.; John, M.T.; Dworkin, S.F.; Svensson, P. Recalibration improves inter-examiner reliability of TMD examination. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2006, 64, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Vainionpää, R.; Kinnunen, T.; Pesonen, P.; Laitala, M.L.; Anttonen, V.; Sipilä, K. Prevalence of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) among Finnish prisoners: Cross-sectional clinical study. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2019, 77, 264–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Dworkin, S.F.; LeResche, L. Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders: Review, criteria, examinations and specifications, critique. J. Craniomandib. Disord. 1992, 6, 301–355. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  28. Wahlund, K.; List, T.; Dworkin, S.F. Temporomandibular disorders in children and adolescents: Reliability of a questionnaire, clinical examination, and diagnosis. J. Orofac. Pain 1998, 12, 42–51. [Google Scholar]
  29. Schiffman, E.; Ohrbach, R.; Truelove, E.; Look, J.; Anderson, G.; Goulet, J.P.; List, T.; Svensson, P.; Gonzalez, Y.; Lobbezoo, F.; 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, 6–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Christidis, N.; Lindström Ndanshau, E.; Sandberg, A.; Tsilingaridis, G. Prevalence and treatment strategies regarding temporomandibular disorders in children and adolescents-A systematic review. J. Oral Rehabil. 2019, 46, 291–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tecco, S.; Crincoli, V.; Di Bisceglie, B.; Saccucci, M.; Macrĺ, M.; Polimeni, A.; Festa, F. Signs and symptoms of temporomandibular joint disorders in Caucasian children and adolescents. Cranio 2011, 29, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Minervini, G.; Franco, R.; Marrapodi, M.M.; Fiorillo, L.; Cervino, G.; Cicciù, M. Prevalence of temporomandibular disorders in children and adolescents evaluated with Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders: A systematic review with meta-analysis. J. Oral Rehabil. 2023, 50, 522–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Graue, A.M.; Jokstad, A.; Assmus, J.; Skeie, M.S. Prevalence among adolescents in Bergen, Western Norway, of temporomandibular disorders according to the DC/TMD criteria and examination protocol. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2016, 74, 449–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Köhler, A.A.; Helkimo, A.N.; Magnusson, T.; Hugoson, A. Prevalence of symptoms and signs indicative of temporomandibular disorders in children and adolescents. A cross-sectional epidemiological investigation covering two decades. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 2009, 10 (Suppl. 1), 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Marpaung, C.; Lobbezoo, F.; van Selms, M.K.A. Temporomandibular Disorders among Dutch Adolescents: Prevalence and Biological, Psychological, and Social Risk Indicators. Pain Res. Manag. 2018, 2018, 5053709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Rauch, A.; Schierz, O.; Körner, A.; Kiess, W.; Hirsch, C. Prevalence of anamnestic symptoms and clinical signs of temporomandibular disorders in adolescents-Results of the epidemiologic LIFE Child Study. J. Oral Rehabil. 2020, 47, 425–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Wu, N.; Hirsch, C. Temporomandibular disorders in German and Chinese adolescents. J. Orofac. Orthop. 2010, 71, 187–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Bonjardim, L.R.; Gavião, M.B.; Pereira, L.J.; Castelo, P.M. Mandibular movements in children with and without signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2004, 12, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Hirsch, C.; John, M.T.; Lautenschläger, C.; List, T. Mandibular jaw movement capacity in 10-17-yr-old children and adolescents: Normative values and the influence of gender, age, and temporomandibular disorders. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2006, 114, 465–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Almutairi, A.F.; Albesher, N.; Aljohani, M.; Alsinanni, M.; Turkistani, O.; Salam, M. Association of oral parafunctional habits with anxiety and the Big-Five Personality Traits in the Saudi adult population. Saudi Dent. J. 2021, 33, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Winocur, E.; Littner, D.; Adams, I.; Gavish, A. Oral habits and their association with signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders in adolescents: A gender comparison. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2006, 102, 482–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Katsikogianni, E.; Schweigert-Gabler, S.; Krisam, J.; Orhan, G.; Bissar, A.; Lux, C.J.; Schmitter, M.; Giannakopoulos, N.N. Diagnostic accuracy of the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders for children aged 8–12 years. J. Oral Rehabil. 2021, 48, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Restrepo, C.C.; Suarez, N.; Moratto, N.; Manrique, R. Content and construct validity of the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders Axis I for children. J. Oral Rehabil. 2020, 47, 809–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lövgren, A.; Visscher, C.M.; Häggman-Henrikson, B.; Lobbezoo, F.; Marklund, S.; Wänman, A. Validity of three screening questions (3Q/TMD) in relation to the DC/TMD. J. Oral Rehabil. 2016, 43, 729–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gonzalez, Y.M.; Schiffman, E.; Gordon, S.M.; Seago, B.; Truelove, E.L.; Slade, G.; Ohrbach, R. Development of a brief and effective temporomandibular disorder pain screening questionnaire: Reliability and validity. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2011, 142, 1183–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Rongo, R.; Ekberg, E.; Nilsson, I.M.; Al-Khotani, A.; Alstergren, P.; Conti, P.C.R.; Durham, J.; Goulet, J.P.; Hirsch, C.; Kalaykova, S.I.; et al. Diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) for children and adolescents: An international Delphi study-Part 1-Development of Axis I. J. Oral Rehabil. 2021, 48, 836–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. See Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders: Assessment Instruments (German). Available online: https://ubwp.buffalo.edu/rdc-tmdinternational/tmd-assessmentdiagnosis/dc-tmd-translations/ (accessed on 23 May 2023).
  48. Herpich, C.M.; Gomes, C.; Dibai-Filho, A.V.; Politti, F.; Souza, C.D.S.; Biasotto-Gonzalez, D.A. Correlation Between Severity of Temporomandibular Disorder, Pain Intensity, and Pressure Pain Threshold. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2018, 41, 47–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Österlund, C.; Berglund, H.; Åkerman, M.; Nilsson, E.; Petersson, H.; Lam, J.; Alstergren, P. Diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders: Diagnostic accuracy for general dentistry procedure without mandatory commands regarding myalgia, arthralgia and headache attributed to temporomandibular disorder. J. Oral Rehabil. 2018, 45, 497–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Paduano, S.; Bucci, R.; Rongo, R.; Silva, R.; Michelotti, A. Prevalence of temporomandibular disorders and oral parafunctions in adolescents from public schools in Southern Italy. Cranio 2020, 38, 370–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Maixner, W.; Diatchenko, L.; Dubner, R.; Fillingim, R.B.; Greenspan, J.D.; Knott, C.; Ohrbach, R.; Weir, B.; Slade, G.D. Orofacial pain prospective evaluation and risk assessment study—The OPPERA study. J. Pain 2011, 12, T4–T11.e11–e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Ohrbach, R.; Bair, E.; Fillingim, R.B.; Gonzalez, Y.; Gordon, S.M.; Lim, P.F.; Ribeiro-Dasilva, M.; Diatchenko, L.; Dubner, R.; Greenspan, J.D.; et al. Clinical orofacial characteristics associated with risk of first-onset TMD: The OPPERA prospective cohort study. J. Pain 2013, 14, T33–T50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Philipp, J.; Zeiler, M.; Wöber, C.; Wagner, G.; Karwautz, A.F.K.; Steiner, T.J.; Wöber-Bingöl, Ç. Prevalence and burden of headache in children and adolescents in Austria—A nationwide study in a representative sample of pupils aged 10–18 years. J. Headache Pain 2019, 20, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. LeResche, L.; Mancl, L.A.; Drangsholt, M.T.; Huang, G.; Von Korff, M. Predictors of onset of facial pain and temporomandibular disorders in early adolescence. Pain 2007, 129, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Speciali, J.G.; Dach, F. Temporomandibular dysfunction and headache disorder. Headache 2015, 55 (Suppl. 1), 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. De Stefano, A.A.; Guercio-Mónaco, E.; Uzcátegui, A.; Boboc, A.M.; Barbato, E.; Galluccio, G. Temporomandibular disorders in Venezuelan and Italian adolescents. Cranio 2020, 40, 517–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Hirsch, C.; Hoffmann, J.; Türp, J.C. Are temporomandibular disorder symptoms and diagnoses associated with pubertal development in adolescents? An epidemiological study. J. Orofac. Orthop. 2012, 73, 6–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Franco-Micheloni, A.L.; Fernandes, G.; de Godoi Gonçalves, D.A.; Camparis, C.M. Temporomandibular Disorders in a Young Adolescent Brazilian Population: Epidemiologic Characterization and Associated Factors. J. Oral Facial Pain Headache 2015, 29, 242–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. El Tumi, H.; Johnson, M.I.; Dantas, P.B.F.; Maynard, M.J.; Tashani, O.A. Age-related changes in pain sensitivity in healthy humans: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Eur. J. Pain 2017, 21, 955–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. von Baeyer, C.L.; Marche, T.A.; Rocha, E.M.; Salmon, K. Children’s memory for pain: Overview and implications for practice. J. Pain 2004, 5, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Nell, K.D.; Joanne, C. The Development of Comprehension. In Handbook of Reading Research: Volume IV; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  62. Lövgren, A.; Parvaneh, H.; Lobbezoo, F.; Häggman-Henrikson, B.; Wänman, A.; Visscher, C.M. Diagnostic accuracy of three screening questions (3Q/TMD) in relation to the DC/TMD in a specialized orofacial pain clinic. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2018, 76, 380–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Nilsson, I.M.; List, T.; Drangsholt, M. The reliability and validity of self-reported temporomandibular disorder pain in adolescents. J. Orofac. Pain 2006, 20, 138–144. [Google Scholar]
  64. Rongo, R.; Ekberg, E.; Nilsson, I.M.; Al-Khotani, A.; Alstergren, P.; Rodrigues Conti, P.C.; Durham, J.; Goulet, J.P.; Hirsch, C.; Kalaykova, S.I.; et al. Diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders in children and adolescents: An international Delphi study-Part 2-Development of Axis II. J. Oral Rehabil. 2022, 49, 541–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Müller, L.; van Waes, H.; Langerweger, C.; Molinari, L.; Saurenmann, R.K. Maximal mouth opening capacity: Percentiles for healthy children 4-17 years of age. Pediatr. Rheumatol. Online J. 2013, 11, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Vogl, T.J.; Lauer, H.C.; Lehnert, T.; Naguib, N.N.; Ottl, P.; Filmann, N.; Soekamto, H.; Nour-Eldin, N.E. The value of MRI in patients with temporomandibular joint dysfunction: Correlation of MRI and clinical findings. Eur. J. Radiol. 2016, 85, 714–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lifland, B.E.; Mangione-Smith, R.; Palermo, T.M.; Rabbitts, J.A. Agreement Between Parent Proxy Report and Child Self-Report of Pain Intensity and Health-Related Quality of Life After Surgery. Acad. Pediatr. 2018, 18, 376–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Durham, J.; Steele, J.; Moufti, M.A.; Wassell, R.; Robinson, P.; Exley, C. Temporomandibular disorder patients’ journey through care. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2011, 39, 532–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Greene, C.S.; Manfredini, D. Transitioning to chronic temporomandibular disorder pain: A combination of patient vulnerabilities and iatrogenesis. J. Oral Rehabil. 2021, 48, 1077–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Macfarlane, G.J. The epidemiology of chronic pain. Pain 2016, 157, 2158–2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Slade, G.; Durham, J. Prevalence, impact, and costs of treatment for temporomandibular disorders. Paper commissioned by the Committee on Temporomandibular Disorders (TMDs): From Research Discoveries to Clinical Treatment. In Temporomandibular Disorders: Priorities for Research and Care; see Appendix C; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  72. de Magalhães Barros, V.; Seraidarian, P.I.; de Souza Côrtes, M.I.; de Paula, L.V. The impact of orofacial pain on the quality of life of patients with temporomandibular disorder. J. Orofac. Pain 2009, 23, 28–37. [Google Scholar]
  73. Durham, J.; Shen, J.; Breckons, M.; Steele, J.G.; Araujo-Soares, V.; Exley, C.; Vale, L. Healthcare Cost and Impact of Persistent Orofacial Pain: The DEEP Study Cohort. J. Dent. Res. 2016, 95, 1147–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Glaros, A.G.; Glass, E.G.; Hayden, W.J. History of treatment received by patients with TMD: A preliminary investigation. J. Orofac. Pain 1995, 9, 147–151. [Google Scholar]
  75. Katsoulis, K.; Bassetti, R.; Windecker-Gétaz, I.; Mericske-Stern, R.; Katsoulis, J. Temporomandibular disorders/myoarthropathy of the masticatory system. Costs of dental treatment and reimbursement by Swiss federal insurance agencies according to the Health Care Benefits Ordinance (KLV). Schweiz. Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2012, 122, 510–526. [Google Scholar]
  76. Nilsson, I.M. Reliability, validity, incidence and impact of temporormandibular pain disorders in adolescents. Swed. Dent. J. Suppl. 2007, 183, 7–86. [Google Scholar]
  77. Egermark, I.; Carlsson, G.E.; Magnusson, T. A 20-year longitudinal study of subjective symptoms of temporomandibular disorders from childhood to adulthood. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2001, 59, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Könönen, M.; Nyström, M. A longitudinal study of craniomandibular disorders in Finnish adolescents. J. Orofac. Pain 1993, 7, 329–336. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Jcm 12 04109 g001 550
Figure 1. Recruitment flow chart for the test/control sample and for the clinical examination in each class.
Figure 1. Recruitment flow chart for the test/control sample and for the clinical examination in each class.
Jcm 12 04109 g001
Jcm 12 04109 g002 550
Figure 2. Increase in prevalence of self-reported headache by age and sex.
Figure 2. Increase in prevalence of self-reported headache by age and sex.
Jcm 12 04109 g002
Jcm 12 04109 g003 550
Figure 3. Prevalence of pain during examination (palpation and mouth movements) by control and test.
Figure 3. Prevalence of pain during examination (palpation and mouth movements) by control and test.
Jcm 12 04109 g003
Table
Table 1. Comparison between the original DC/TMD protocol [47] and the shortened version.
Table 1. Comparison between the original DC/TMD protocol [47] and the shortened version.
DC/TMD
Symptom Questionnaire		DC/TMD
Examination Protocol
Original
Version		Shortened
Version		Original
Version		Shortened
Version
SQ1SQ1E1aE1a
SQ2—E1bE1b
SQ3SQ3E2E2
SQ4SQ4E3E3
SQ5SQ5E4aE4a
SQ6—E4bE4b
SQ7SQ7E4c—
SQ8SQ8E4d—
SQ9SQ9E5E5
SQ10—E6E6
SQ11—E7E7
SQ12—E8E8
SQ13SQ13E9E9
SQ14—E10—
—OH *
Numbers indicate the questionnaire number or the examination step. SQ = Symptom Questionnaire; E = examination; OH = oral habits. * Additional questions about oral habits: A. Do you grind your teeth?; B. Do you clench your teeth?; C. Do you bite your nails?; D. Do you suck a pacifier or your thumb?; E. Do you play a wind instrument?
Table
Table 2. Prevalence of self-reported pain, jaw function disturbances, and orals habits as reported in the shortened DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire.
Table 2. Prevalence of self-reported pain, jaw function disturbances, and orals habits as reported in the shortened DC/TMD Symptom Questionnaire.
Answers (n = 239)No/No Pain
n (%)		Yes/Pain Comes and Goes
n (%)
TotalGirlsBoysAged
7–10 		Aged
11–14		TotalGirlsBoysAged
7–10		Aged
11–14
Ever experienced pain in the temporomandibular region173 (72.4)92
(73.6%)		81
(71.1)		100
(73.0)		73
(71.6)		66
(27.6)		33
(26.4)		33
(28.9)		37
(27.0)		29
(28.4)
Description of any pain in the temporomandibular region in last 30 days207 (86.6)109
(87.2)		98
(86.0)		122
(89.1)		85
(83.3)		32
(13.4)		16
(12.8)		16
(14.0)		15
(10.9)		17
(16.7)
Pain during jaw activities
A. Chewing227 (95.0)119
(95.2)		108
(94.7)		132
(96.4)		95
(93.1)		12
(5.0)		6
(4.8)		6
(5.3)		5
(3.6)		7
(6.9)
B. Opening/movements to the front or to the side232 (97.1)122
(97.6)		110
(96.5)		133
(97.1)		99
(97.1)		7
(2.9)		3
(2.4)		4
(3.5)		4
(2.9)		3
(2.9)
C. Jaw habits229 (95.8)120
(96.0)		108
(95.6)		136
(99.3)		93
(91.2)		10
(4.2)		5
(4.0)		5
(4.4)		1
(0.7)		9
(8.8)
D. Other jaw activities (talking, kissing, yawning, …)235 (98.3)123
(98.4)		112
(98.2)		137
(100)		98
(96.1)		4
(1.7)		2
(1.6)		2
(1.8)		0
(0.0)		4
(3.9)
Temporal headache in the last 30 days188 (78.7)97
(77.6)		91
(79.8)		115
(83.9)		73
(71.6)		51
(21.3)		28
(22.4)		23
(20.2)		22
(16.1)		29
(28.4)
Temporal headache during jaw activities
A. Chewing223 (93.3)115
(92.0)		108
(94.7)		132
(96.4)		91
(89.2)		16
(6.7)		10
(8.0)		6
(5.3)		5
(3.6)		11
(10.8)
B. Opening/movements to the front or to the side232 (97.1)121
(96.8)		111
(97.4)		133
(97.1)		99
(97.1)		7
(2.9)		4
(3.2)		3
(2.6)		4
(2.9)		3
(2.9)
C. jaw habits224 (93.7)115
(91.2)		109
(96.5)		132
(96.4)		92
(90.2)		15
(6.3)		11
(8.8)		4
(3.5)		5
(3.6)		10
(9.8)
D. Other jaw activities (talking, kissing, yawning, …)228 (95.4)118
(94.4)		110
(96.5)		134
(97.8		94
(92.2)		11
(4.6)		7
(5.6)		4
(3.5)		3
(2.2)		8
(7.8)
Jaw joint noises213 (89.1)109
(87.2)		104
(91.2)		121
(88.3)		92
(90.2)		26
(10.9)		16
(12.8)		10
(8.8)		16
(11.7)		10
(9.8)
Closed locking of the jaw233 (97.5)121
(96.8)		112
(98.2)		136
(99.3)		97
(95.1)		6
(2.5)		4
(3.2)		2
(1.8)		1
(0.7)		5
(4.9)
Open locking of the jaw236 (98.7)123
(98.4)		113
(99.1)		135
(98.5)		101
(99.0)		3
(1.3)		2
(1.6)		1
(0.9)		2
(1.5)		1
(1.0)
Oral habits
A. Grinding162 (67.8)78
(62.4)		84
(73.7)		85
(62.0)		77
(75.5)		77
(32.2)		47
(37.6)		30
(26.3)		52
(38.0)		25
(24.5)
B. Clenching178 (74.5)96
(76.8)		82
(71.9)		101
(73.7)		77
(75.5)		61
(25.5)		29
(23.2)		32
(28.1)		36
(26.3)		25
(24.5)
C. Nail biting149 (62.3)82
(65.6)		67
(58.8)		99
(72.3)		50
(49.0)		90
(37.7)		43
(34.4)		47
(41.2)		38
(27.7)		52
(51.0)
D. Pacifier/thumb sucking231 (96.7)121
(96.8)		110
(96.5)		131
(95.6)		100
(98)		8
(3.3)		4
(3.2)		4
(3.5)		6
(4.4)		2
(2.0)
E. Wind instrument212 (88.7)109
(87.2)		103
(90.4)		122
(89.1)		90
(88.2)		27
(11.3)		16
(12.8)		11
(9.6)		15
(10.9)		12
(11.8)
Table
Table 3. Average values measured in millimeters (mm) and standard deviation (SD) for mouth opening, lateral movements, and protrusion divided according to age group, sex, and control/test.
Table 3. Average values measured in millimeters (mm) and standard deviation (SD) for mouth opening, lateral movements, and protrusion divided according to age group, sex, and control/test.
GroupPain-Free
Opening		Maximum Un-
Assisted Opening		Right Lateral
Movement		Left Lateral
Movement		Protrusion
Age Group (in Years)
7–1045.8 (5.76)46.71 (5.72)9 (2.11)9.31 (1.97)9.4 (2.14)
11–1448.29 (5.61)50.17 (5.47) *9.54 (1.59)9.58 (2.54)10.17 (1.27)
Sex
Girls47.07 (5.36)48.4 (5.46)8.83 (1.82)9.4 (1.71)9.37 (1.87)
Boys46.55 (6.29)47.83 (6.27)9.62 (1.97)9.45 (2.64)10.07 (1.83)
Control/Test
Control45.49 (6.1)46.63 (5.96)9.09 (2.27)9.11 (2.61)9.51 (3.67)
Test48.75 (4.78) *50.29 (4.99) *9.42 (1.28)9.88 (1.33)10 (1.79)
Total
Total46.81 (5.79)48.12 (5.83)9.22 (1.92)9.42 (2.2)9.71 (1.87)
* p < 0.05.
Table
Table 4. Individually considered TMD diagnoses according to the DC/TMD diagnostic decision tree among 59 examined children and adolescents.
Table 4. Individually considered TMD diagnoses according to the DC/TMD diagnostic decision tree among 59 examined children and adolescents.
Number (%)SexAge Group (Years)
GirlsBoys7–1011–14
Myalgia4 (6.8)2213
Local myalgia3 (5.1)2112
Myofascial pain with referral1 (1.7) 1 1
Arthralgia3 (5.1)1212
Disc displacement with reduction †6 (10.2)2442
Total number of examined symptomatic subjects with a TMD diagnosis10 * (16.9)
† For one student, the diagnosis of disc displacement could not be subdivided due to the shortened Symptom Questionnaire; * Multiple diagnoses are possible.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rentsch, M.; Zumbrunn Wojczyńska, A.; Gallo, L.M.; Colombo, V. Prevalence of Temporomandibular Disorders Based on a Shortened Symptom Questionnaire of the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders and Its Screening Reliability for Children and Adolescents Aged 7–14 Years. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 4109. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12124109

AMA Style

Rentsch M, Zumbrunn Wojczyńska A, Gallo LM, Colombo V. Prevalence of Temporomandibular Disorders Based on a Shortened Symptom Questionnaire of the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders and Its Screening Reliability for Children and Adolescents Aged 7–14 Years. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(12):4109. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12124109

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rentsch, Mathias, Aleksandra Zumbrunn Wojczyńska, Luigi M. Gallo, and Vera Colombo. 2023. "Prevalence of Temporomandibular Disorders Based on a Shortened Symptom Questionnaire of the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders and Its Screening Reliability for Children and Adolescents Aged 7–14 Years" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 12: 4109. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12124109

APA Style

Rentsch, M., Zumbrunn Wojczyńska, A., Gallo, L. M., & Colombo, V. (2023). Prevalence of Temporomandibular Disorders Based on a Shortened Symptom Questionnaire of the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders and Its Screening Reliability for Children and Adolescents Aged 7–14 Years. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(12), 4109. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12124109

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop