Next Article in Journal
Left Ventricular Deformation and Myocardial Work Parameters in Patients with Hereditary Transthyretin Amyloidosis Treated with Patisiran: A Single-Center Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Intra-Articular Physiological Saline in Temporomandibular Disorders May Be a Treatment, Not a Placebo: A Hypothesis, Systematic Review, and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Single Incision Sling Surgery for Female Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Retrospective Cohort Single-Institution Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Global Prevalence of Sleep Bruxism and Awake Bruxism in Pediatric and Adult Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 16
10.3390/jcm13164909
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Association of Malocclusion with Temporomandibular Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study

by
David Faustino Ângelo
1,2,3,4,5,*,
Maria Cristina Faria-Teixeira
3,
Francesco Maffia
1,6,
David Sanz
1,
Marcella Sarkis
1,
Rute Marques
1,
Beatriz Mota
1,5,
Ricardo São João
7,8,9,10 and
Henrique José Cardoso
1,*
1
Instituto Português da Face, 1500-493 Lisbon, Portugal
2
Centre for Rapid and Sustainable Product Development, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, 2430-028 Marinha Grande, Portugal
3
Faculty of Medicine, Lisboa University, 1649-028 Lisbon, Portugal
4
Serviço de Estomatologia Hospital Egas Moniz, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, 1349-019 Lisbon, Portugal
5
Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte (CHUNL), Clinica Universitária de Estomatologia, 1648-028 Lisbon, Portugal
6
Maxillofacial Surgery Unit, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University of Naples “Federico II”, Via Sergio Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy
7
Department of Computer Science and Quantitative Methods, School of Management and Technology, Polytechnic Institute of Santarém, 2001-904 Santarém, Portugal
8
CEAUL—Centro de Estatística e Aplicações, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, 1749-016 Lisbon, Portugal
9
Center for Global Studies (CEG-UAb), Aberta University, 1250-100 Lisbon, Portugal
10
Nursing Research, Innovation and Development Center of Lisbon (CIDNUR), 1600-190 Lisbon, Portugal
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(16), 4909; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164909
Submission received: 29 July 2024 / Revised: 12 August 2024 / Accepted: 17 August 2024 / Published: 20 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Current Trend in the Management of Bruxism and Temporomandibular Disorders)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background/Objectives: Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) encompass a range of musculoskeletal and neuromuscular conditions affecting the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and associated structures. This cross-sectional study, conducted in a Portuguese TMD department, aimed to assess the relationship between malocclusion and TMD severity. Methods: Data on demographic variables, TMD clinical symptoms, and malocclusion classes were collected using the EUROTMJ database. The Chi-square test (χ2) identified associations, with their intensity measured by Cramér’s V (φc). Results: The study included 1170 patients (932 females and 238 males), with a mean age of 41.73 ± 16.80 years. Most patients exhibited Angle Class I malocclusion (85.5%), followed by Angle Class II (13.5%) and Angle Class III (1.1%). Class II malocclusion was associated with increased TMD severity (p < 0.001), higher myalgia levels (p = 0.002), more frequent disc displacement without reduction (p = 0.002) and lower maximum mouth opening values (Class II: 38.13 ± 7.78 mm, Class I: 39.93 ± 8.67 mm). Significant associations were also found between malocclusion type and arthralgia (p = 0.021), mouth-opening limitation (p = 0.016), and TMJ crepitus (p = 0.017). In cases of malocclusion, the presence of oral signs of bruxism explained the degree of myalgia, disc displacement, and severity (p = 0.003; p = 0.048; p = 0.045). Conclusions: This study highlights that (1) the most common type of dental malocclusion in TMD patients was Class I; (2) Class II malocclusion was associated with increased TMD severity and oral signs of bruxism; and (3) Class III was rarely observed in TMD consultation. The findings suggest that bruxism behavior in cases of malocclusion may be significant in TMD.

1. Introduction

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are a group of musculoskeletal and neuromuscular conditions involving the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), masticatory muscles, and all associated structures [1,2]. TMD include abnormalities in the intra-articular disc position and/or dysfunction of the related musculature [3,4]. Common signs and symptoms are TMJ pain, clicking, masticatory muscle tension, headache, and restricted mouth opening [5]. Notably, TMD symptoms disproportionately affect females, with reported female-to-male ratios ranging from 2:1 to 8:1 [4,6,7].
A significant subset of TMD patients—up to 70%—suffers from internal derangement (ID) of the TMJ disc. Despite its prevalence, TMD progression is poorly understood and often associated with degenerative conditions such as osteoarthritis (OA) [1,8]. Thorough clinical evaluation, including physical examinations and imaging, is crucial for accurate diagnosis. Various questionnaires and indexes help to describe and validate TMD diagnoses and symptom severity [1,8]. The primary clinical management goals are to increase the mandibular range of motion, decrease joint and muscle pain, and prevent further degenerative changes.
TMD affect 25–38% of the general population [9,10] and are influenced by factors like maxillofacial traumas, parafunctional habits, functional overloading, increased joint friction, metabolic conditions, unstable occlusion, orthodontic treatment, wisdom teeth removal, sleep and psychosocial factors [4,11]. The role of these factors remains controversial due to inconsistent evidence of cause-and-effect relationships. Potential confounding factors, such as age, sex, familiarity, or environment, also play significant roles [12,13].
The link between malocclusion and TMD is particularly contentious. An unstable occlusion might disrupt TMJ load-bearing capacity, possibly contributing to TMD development [14]. While tooth-clenching and grinding are acknowledged as significant factors, the exact contribution of malocclusion remains debated.
This research aims to fill the gap in understanding the role of malocclusion in TMD, providing new insights and highlighting limitations in existing research. Our objectives were to assess (1) the type of malocclusion of TMD patients seeking specialist appointments and (2) the severity of TMD symptoms and their possible association with the type of malocclusion.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This cross-sectional study was conducted over five years at a Portuguese TMD department, from 1 January 2019 to 1 January 2024. This study was approved by the Instituto Português da Face Ethics committee (reference number: PT/IPFace//RCT/0119/2402). Participants provided voluntary written consent after being informed about the study’s purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits, with assurances of confidentiality according to current legislation.

2.2. Data Collection

The inclusion criteria included (1) comprehensive documentation of all relevant variables during the initial consultation and (2) a clinical and imaging diagnosis of unilateral or bilateral TMD. Exclusion criteria consisted of the following: (1) severe medical conditions or evidence of impaired cognitive capacity, (2) patients with tooth loss, and (3) any history of previous TMJ surgical intervention or any facial trauma within the previous 4 weeks before the study.

2.3. Variables Recorded

Data were recorded in the European Temporomandibular Joint (EUROTMJ) database, including demographic data, Angle’s occlusion classification, mouth-opening limitation, maximum mouth-opening (MMO), the presence of clicks, crepitus, myalgia, and arthralgia. Bruxism signs were also registered during intra-oral examinations. This database’s functioning and registration variables have already been previously described [4].
Dental malocclusion was assessed during the clinical examination and registered according to Angle’s occlusion classification based on the relationship between the mesiobuccal cusp of the maxillary first molar and the buccal groove of the mandibular first molar (Class I malocclusion, Class II malocclusion, Class III malocclusion).
TMD symptoms were assessed using several specific tools: the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the TheraBite Jaw range-of.motion (ROM) Scale.
Mouth opening limitation was defined as encountered when (1) patients perceived a limitation in their mouth opening; (2) it was clinically observed; and (3) the measured MMO was <40 mm [15,16]. MMO was assessed using a certified ruler between the upper and lower incisors (TheraBite Jaw ROM Scale).
Myalgia was diagnosed based on a history of jaw pain in the past 30 days, pain in front of or directly in the ear, and clinical confirmation through palpation of the masticatory muscles. The palpation pressure was standardized (5 s/1 kg pressure) in the masseter and temporalis muscles, following the DC/TMD guidelines. [15,16]. Myalgia was graded according to pain severity: 0 = No Pain/Pressure Only; 1 = Mild Pain; 2 = Moderate Pain; and 3 = Severe Pain [17].
Crepitus and clicks were clinically assessed and registered when present during mouth-opening and mouth-closing movements.
Arthralgia was reported if verified if (1) there was a history of pain in the TMJ area, and (2) it was accompanied by jaw movement, function, or parafunction [15,16]. The level of TMJ arthralgia was registered through the VAS (0–10, with 0 being no pain and 10 being severe pain), assessing the pain on palpation of the lateral pole area or registering the pain during maximum unassisted/assisted opening or lateral or protrusive movements.
The position of the articular disc was determined using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). It was classified as follows: absence of displacement (woD), displacement of the disc with reduction (DDwR), displacement of the disc without reduction (DDwoR), or the presence of one side with reduction and the other without reduction (DDwR/DDwoR).
The severity of TMD was assessed according to the Dimitroulis classification: category 1—normal TMJ; category 2—minor TMJ changes; category 3—moderate TMJ changes; category 4—severe TMJ changes; and category 5—catastrophic TMJ changes [18].
The same clinician (D.F.A) carried out all clinical assessments and diagnoses. Inter-rater reliability was ensured by standardizing training and assessment protocols for all clinicians and conducting regular calibration meetings. Consistency was monitored through periodic comparisons of evaluations between different raters to maintain high agreement levels.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

A power analysis was performed to achieve a statistical power of 80% with a significance level of 5%. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS (v26, Armonk, NY, USA) software.
The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS (v26, Armonk, NY, USA). Non-parametric tests, including the Chi-square test (χ2) and Mann–Whitney test, were chosen because the data did not meet the assumptions required for parametric tests, such as normal distribution. The Chi-square test assessed associations between categorical variables, while the Mann–Whitney test compared medians between groups. Cramér’s V Coefficient (φc) was used to measure the strength of associations. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

A total of 1170 patients were registered in the EUROTMJ database with a mean age of 41.73 ± 16.80 years. Nine hundred thirty-two patients were females, representing 79.7% of the sample.
Clinical evaluation revealed that 683 patients (63.7%) had arthralgia, with a VAS level of 6.54 ± 2.54. Mouth opening limitation was observed in 684 patients (58.5%), with an MMO of 38.59 ± 8.46 mm (Table 1). The mean myalgia degree was 2.16 ± 1.04. TMJ crepitus and clicks were present in 251 (23.3%) and 541 (50.2%) patients, respectively (Table 1). Disc displacement with reduction (DDwR) was noted in 396 patients (33.8%), while 265 (22.6%) had disc displacement without reduction (DDwoR), and 87 patients presented one side with DDwoR and other with DDwR (7.4%). In 299 patients (25.6%), no disc displacement was observed. Regarding the Dimitroulis Classification, 317 patients (27.3%) were included in Category 1 (Normal TMJ), 413 patients (35.6%) in Category 2 (TMJ minor changes), 228 in Category 3 (19.7%) (TMJ moderate changes), 196 patients (16.9%) in Category 4 (TMJ severe changes) and 6 (0.5%) in Category 5 (Catastrophic TMJ) (Table 1). Oral signs of bruxism were observed in 368 patients (31.5%).
Dental malocclusion was assessed in 950 patients. Angle’s classification revealed that 812 patients (85.474%) had Class I malocclusion, 128 patients (13.474%) had Class II malocclusion, and 10 (1.05%) patients had Class III malocclusion (Figure 1).
This article aimed to assess whether there was any association between the TMD clinical variables and the type of malocclusion. Class III malocclusion showed a low causality for statistical comparison purposes. Thus, only Class I and II comparisons were considered (Table 2).
While assessing the association of clinical variables with the type of malocclusion, we observed that arthralgia, limitation of mouth opening, and TMJ crepitus had an association (p = 0.021; p = 0.016; p = 0.017, Table 2). All associations were weak according to Cramér’s V Coefficient (φc = 0.075; φc = 0.078; φc = 0.078). It should be noted that there was a higher percentage of Class II patients with arthralgia and limited mouth opening and crepitus when compared to Class I patients (73.0% vs. 62.8%; 69.6% vs. 58.7%; 30.7% vs. 21.4%, respectively, Table 2).
Oral signs of bruxism also presented a weak association with the type of malocclusion (p = 0.043, φc = 0.066, Table 2). Seventy-six percent (75.7%) of Class II patients showed oral signs of bruxism, compared with 67.0% of Class I patients.
Myalgia degree and disc position were also associated with the type of malocclusion (p = 0.002); p = 0.002, Table 2). Both associations were moderate (φc = 0.104; φc = 0.0128). Class II patients had the highest levels of myalgia, with 87.7% exhibiting a myalgia degree from 2 to 3. In addition, Class II patients had a higher association with DDwoR than Class I patients (36.6% vs. 24.2%, Table 2). Class II patients also had significantly lower MMO values than Class I patients (38.13 ± 7.78 vs. 39.93 ± 8.67; p = 0.01, Z = −2.575, Table 2). Class III patients had higher MMO averages than Classes I and II (42.40 ± 5.85 vs. 38.13 ± 7.78 and 39.93 ± 8.67, Table 2).
We further assessed whether there was an association between the malocclusion class and the TMD severity assessed by the Dimitroulis classification (Figure 2). An association was identified between the malocclusion type and the TMD severity (p < 0.001, Figure 2). The association was moderate (φc = 0.141). Figure 2 shows that Class II patients had increased TMD severity compared to Class I patients (Dimitroulis category 4— 25% vs. 15%, Figure 2). In line with this, Class I patients had a higher percentage of patients in low severity categories when compared to Class II patients (Dimitroulis category 1—27% vs. 18%, Figure 2).
Next, we checked whether signs of bruxism could be associated with the results obtained in cases of malocclusion (Table 3). It was found that in cases of malocclusion, patients with bruxism were associated with higher levels of myalgia, more cases of DDwoR, and a higher degree of severity (p = 0.003; p = 0.048; p = 0.045, Table 2). This association was strongly related (φc = 0.319; φc = 0.240; φc = 0.267).
Finally, we checked for associations between previous orthognathic surgery, orthodontic treatment, and the Class of malocclusion. No associations were found (Table 4).

4. Discussion

This study aimed to explore the relationship between malocclusion classes and TMD severity, focusing on the association between malocclusion patterns and clinical manifestations such as myalgia, disc displacement, and limited mouth opening. Our findings contribute to the existing body of research on TMD by highlighting specific craniofacial features and malocclusion patterns that may influence TMD severity, particularly in Class II malocclusion cases.
Our results show that Class I malocclusion was the most prevalent among TMD patients, but Class II malocclusion was linked to more severe symptoms. Patients with Class II malocclusion exhibited higher rates of arthralgia, myalgia, and restricted mouth opening compared to those with Class I. Although no statistical test was carried out, it is essential to note that Class III appears to be associated with some variables, namely high levels of myalgia, limited mouth opening, and disc displacement. Studying this Class of malocclusion with a larger sample in the future would be necessary. Notably, the association between TMD severity and Class II malocclusion was further supported by the Dimitroulis classification, which revealed that Class II patients had a higher percentage of severe cases. Recent craniofacial studies assessing dental malocclusion and TMD symptoms report that patients presenting Class I malocclusion frequently revealed no signs of TMD. At the same time, 70% of Class II individuals had TMD-related mild symptoms, according to the Fonseca Anamnestic Index [13].
Muscular variables play an essential role in stomatognathic balance and TMJ stability. Recent studies show that the lateral pterygoid muscle (LPM) plays a central role in disc and condyle rotation [19]. Morphological changes in the LPM observed in Class II patients could be related to internal derangement and abnormal disc movements [19,20]. Several studies have shown an association between anterior disc displacement and hyperdivergent Class II malocclusion [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Investigations [29,30] suggest an etiologic role of TMJ internal derangement in the dysmorphic development of the craniofacial complex and consequent malocclusion, based on the concept that the condyle represents a crucial growth center. Disc displacement can lead to compressive stress, decreased lubrication surfaces, inflammation, and tissue damage, resulting in pain, myalgia, and condylar and ramus height reduction, classically observed in Class II patients [14].
Class II patients also had significantly lower MMO values than Class I patients. Class III patients had higher MMO averages than Classes I and II patients. The literature suggests that Class II patients typically exhibit reduced condylar dimensions compared with those with Class III, but their glenoid fossae volumes are similar [25,31]. Moreover, the condyle/fossa matching degree correlates negatively with positional variation. More prominent condyles and similar glenoid fossae in Class III patients are related to a better condyle/fossa matching degree and less condylar displacement [25,31]. Therefore, the condyle/fossa matching degree and articular stability in patients with Class II seem significantly smaller than in patients with skeletal Class III (SCIII). We hypothesize that the condyle/fossa matching degree could contribute to the increased mouth opening length observed in Class III patients.
Morphometric studies suggest that particular craniofacial features are often found in severe skeletal Class II patients. These features include mandibular retrusion, clockwise rotation of the mandible, smaller ramus height, decreased posterior facial height, larger occlusal angle, and a smaller sagittal position of the mandible (SNB). The same skeletal features are also related positively to the progression of degenerative joint disease or TMD signs and symptoms in adults [14,32,33]. Additionally, degenerative joint disorders are linked to a mandibular ramus deficiency, a larger gonial angle, a clockwise rotation of the mandible, a retrognathic appearance, and a vertically elongated facial pattern [14]. These features lead to a skeletal Class II malocclusion.
In this study, a higher percentage of Class II patients showed oral signs of bruxism compared to Class I patients. Among the patients with malocclusion who exhibited oral signs of bruxism, there was a higher degree of myalgia, more cases with DDwoR, and more cases of category 4 according to the Dimitroulis Classification. This aligns with the literature suggesting that bruxism, particularly clenching, may increase joint loading and muscle tension, contributing to the development or exacerbation of TMD symptoms. Recent research has provided preliminary support for this concept [34,35]. The correlation between bruxism and malocclusion needs further exploration in future studies.
Finally, we investigated possible associations between previous orthognathic surgery, orthodontic treatment, and class of malocclusion. No associations were found. Despite previous reports on the effect, the impact of orthognathic surgery on the signs and symptoms of TMD is still controversial [36]. The recent literature suggests orthognathic surgeries could positively affect TMD, reflecting the correlation between skeletal malocclusion and TMD [37,38,39]. One particular study reported a decrease in TMD symptoms prevalence after orthognathic surgery, although the overall positive effect was less effective in skeletal Class II patients [40]. Some patients experienced postoperative condylar resorption, with those having preexisting TMJ dysfunction more likely to have worsening TMD after orthognathic surgery, especially in skeletal Class II patients [41]. Thus, malocclusion patterns seem to significantly influence the skeletal and muscular transmission of occlusal force in the stomatognathic system, affecting the adaptive remodeling of the TMJ [42].
Regarding the association between orthodontic treatment and TMD, evidence shows that orthodontic treatment can potentially influence TMD, but the exact nature of this relationship is complex and not fully understood [43,44,45]. While some studies suggest that orthodontic interventions might alleviate or exacerbate TMD symptoms, the evidence remains mixed [46]. Recent research with Class II and Class III patients has reported that the use of intermaxillary elastics increased the strain in the TMJ, particularly among Class II patients [47]. In contemporary orthodontics, adult patients frequently choose transparent aligners for their orthodontic treatment. Recent research shows an increased electromyographic activity of the masticatory muscles after 6 months of treatment with transparent aligners [48]. However, the potential relationship between the increased strain and the development of TMD signs and symptoms remains unknown and needs investigation in future studies [47].
The potential association between malocclusion and TMJ dysfunction remains a subject of debate. The current literature shows that several occlusal factors may contribute to developing signs and symptoms of TMD, with a higher prevalence of TMD symptoms in patients with dentofacial deformities and consequent malocclusion [49]. The potential association between malocclusion and TMJ disorders suggests that TMD arise as a malocclusion pattern may create an imbalance between the load exerted on the TMJs and their capability of bearing the load [14]. Most of the current literature questions the causal role of occlusion and occlusal disharmony in TMD etiopathogenesis [50]. In a systematic review, Lekaviciute, et al. [51] concluded that there is insufficient evidence to establish a direct and consistent relationship between occlusal class and TMD. They highlight that, although some studies suggest a possible association, the evidence is not robust enough to confirm a clear link [51]. Instead, the relationship between occlusal factors and TMD is considered complex and multifaceted, involving a combination of biomechanical, neuromuscular, and psychosocial factors. Our study contributes to this discussion by providing empirical evidence of the correlation between specific malocclusion types and TMD symptoms. However, it is essential to acknowledge the complexity of TMD etiology, which involves multifactorial influences beyond occlusal factors alone. The findings emphasize the need for a comprehensive diagnostic approach that considers both occlusal and non-occlusal factors in managing TMD.
As a cross-sectional study, our research is limited in establishing causality between malocclusion and TMD severity. The findings reflect associations rather than cause-and-effect relationships, which would require longitudinal studies to confirm. Additionally, our study did not include a control group of individuals without TMD, limiting our ability to compare the prevalence of malocclusion patterns in the general population. Other limitations include potential biases related to the single-center design and the lack of morphological or cephalometric assessments. Moreover, we did not include patients with tooth loss, which could influence occlusal patterns and subsequently affect TMD symptoms [51,52].
The clinical implications of our findings are that oral surgeons should consider occlusal factors when diagnosing and treating TMD. Recognizing the potential impact of Class II malocclusion on TMD severity can aid in developing more targeted and effective treatment strategies. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies to better understand the causative relationships and incorporate comprehensive imaging and morphological assessments to provide a more nuanced understanding of the interplay between malocclusion and TMJ function.

5. Conclusions

This study indicates that Class II malocclusion is associated with increased severity of TMD symptoms, including higher levels of myalgia and more frequent cases of disc displacement without reduction. While Class I malocclusion was the most prevalent in our sample, Class II patients exhibited more severe symptoms, highlighting the potential influence of specific craniofacial features on TMD. These conclusions are drawn considering the significant limitations of our study, including its cross-sectional nature and lack of a control group. The results underscore the importance of occlusal factors in TMD diagnosis and treatment. Future research should aim to confirm these findings through longitudinal studies and further explore the underlying mechanisms. This study contributes valuable insights into the complex relationship between malocclusion patterns and TMD, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive approach to patient care and management.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.F.Â., M.C.F.-T., D.S. and H.J.C.; Data curation, M.C.F.-T.; Formal analysis, M.C.F.-T., R.S.J. and H.J.C.; Investigation, D.F.Â., M.C.F.-T., F.M., D.S., M.S., R.M., B.M. and H.J.C.; Methodology, D.F.Â., M.C.F.-T., D.S., R.S.J. and H.J.C.; Project administration, D.F.Â., D.S. and H.J.C.; Resources, D.F.Â. and D.S.; Supervision, D.F.Â. and H.J.C.; Validation, D.F.Â., F.M., D.S., M.S., R.M., B.M., R.S.J. and H.J.C.; Writing—original draft, D.F.Â., M.C.F.-T., F.M. and H.J.C.; Writing—review and editing, D.F.Â., M.C.F.-T., F.M., D.S., M.S., R.M., B.M., R.S.J. and H.J.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We acknowledge the Portuguese Society of Rheumatology and the Rheumatic Diseases Portuguese Registry (Reuma.pt) for supporting the European Temporomandibular Joint Surgery registry.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Instituto Português da Face ethics committee (reference number: PT/IPFace//RCT/0119/2402 on 14 December 2018).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Helkimo, M. Studies on function and dysfunction of the masticatory system. Acta Odontol. Scand. 1974, 32, 255–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ohrbach, R.; Dworkin, S.F. The Evolution of TMD Diagnosis: Past, Present, Future. J. Dent. Res. 2016, 95, 1093–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tanaka, E.; Detamore, M.S.; Mercuri, L.G. Degenerative disorders of the temporomandibular joint: Etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. J. Dent. Res. 2008, 87, 296–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ângelo, D.F.; Mota, B.; João, R.S.; Sanz, D.; Cardoso, H.J. Prevalence of Clinical Signs and Symptoms of Temporomandibular Joint Disorders Registered in the EUROTMJ Database: A Prospective Study in a Portuguese Center. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 3553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Scrivani, S.J.; Keith, D.A.; Kaban, L.B. Temporomandibular disorders. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 359, 2693–2705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wilkes, C.H. Internal derangements of the temporomandibular joint. Pathological variations. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head. Neck Surg. 1989, 115, 469–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Goncalves, J.R.; Wolford, L.M.; Cassano, D.S.; da Porciuncula, G.; Paniagua, B.; Cevidanes, L.H. Temporomandibular joint condylar changes following maxillomandibular advancement and articular disc repositioning. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2013, 71, 1759.e1–1759.e15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Campos, J.A.; Carrascosa, A.C.; Bonafé, F.S.; Maroco, J. Severity of temporomandibular disorders in women: Validity and reliability of the Fonseca Anamnestic Index. Braz. Oral Res. 2014, 28, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Anastassaki Köhler, A.; Hugoson, A.; Magnusson, T. Prevalence of symptoms indicative of temporomandibular disorders in adults: Cross-sectional epidemiological investigations covering two decades. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2012, 70, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Murphy, M.K.; MacBarb, R.F.; Wong, M.E.; Athanasiou, K.A. Temporomandibular disorders: A review of etiology, clinical management, and tissue engineering strategies. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2013, 28, e393–e414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gray, R.J.; Davies, S.J.; Quayle, A.A. A clinical approach to temporomandibular disorders. 1. Classification and functional anatomy. Br. Dent. J. 1994, 176, 429–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Roosenboom, J.; Hens, G.; Mattern, B.C.; Shriver, M.D.; Claes, P. Exploring the Underlying Genetics of Craniofacial Morphology through Various Sources of Knowledge. Biomed. Res. Int. 2016, 2016, 3054578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Valinhas, S.; Paço, M.; Santos, R.; Pinho, T. Interrelationship between facial pattern, malocclusion, TMDs, head and neck posture and type of breathing in young people. Rev. Port. Estomatol. Med. Dentária E Cir. Maxilofac. 2018, 59, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Manfredini, D.; Segù, M.; Arveda, N.; Lombardo, L.; Siciliani, G.; Alessandro, R.; Guarda-Nardini, L. Temporomandibular Joint Disorders in Patients With Different Facial Morphology. A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2016, 74, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Schiffman, E.L.; Ohrbach, R.; Truelove, E.L.; Tai, F.; Anderson, G.C.; Pan, W.; Gonzalez, Y.M.; John, M.T.; Sommers, E.; List, T.; et al. The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. V: Methods used to establish and validate revised Axis I diagnostic algorithms. J. Orofac. Pain. 2010, 24, 63–78. [Google Scholar]
  16. 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. J. Oral Facial Pain. Headache 2014, 28, 6–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Goiato, M.C.; Zuim, P.R.J.; Moreno, A.; Dos Santos, D.M.; da Silva, E.V.F.; de Caxias, F.P.; Turcio, K.H.L. Does pain in the masseter and anterior temporal muscles influence maximal bite force? Arch. Oral Biol. 2017, 83, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dimitroulis, G. A new surgical classification for temporomandibular joint disorders. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2013, 42, 218–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Klineberg, I. The lateral pterygoid muscle: Some anatomical, physiological and clinical considerations. Ann. R. Australas. Coll. Dent. Surg. 1991, 11, 96–108. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fujita, S.; Iizuka, T.; Dauber, W. Variation of heads of lateral pterygoid muscle and morphology of articular disc of human temporomandibular joint--anatomical and histological analysis. J. Oral Rehabil. 2001, 28, 560–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Flores-Mir, C.; Nebbe, B.; Heo, G.; Major, P.W. Longitudinal study of temporomandibular joint disc status and craniofacial growth. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2006, 130, 324–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nebbe, B.; Major, P.W.; Prasad, N. Female adolescent facial pattern associated with TMJ disk displacement and reduction in disk length: Part I. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1999, 116, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nebbe, B.; Major, P.W.; Prasad, N.G. Male adolescent facial pattern associated with TMJ disk displacement and reduction in disk length: Part II. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1999, 116, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Trpkova, B.; Major, P.; Nebbe, B.; Prasad, N. Craniofacial asymmetry and temporomandibular joint internal derangement in female adolescents: A posteroanterior cephalometric study. Angle Orthod. 2000, 70, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  25. Iguchi, R.; Yoshizawa, K.; Moroi, A.; Tsutsui, T.; Hotta, A.; Hiraide, R.; Takayama, A.; Tsunoda, T.; Saito, Y.; Sato, M.; et al. Comparison of temporomandibular joint and ramus morphology between class II and class III cases before and after bi-maxillary osteotomy. J. Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017, 45, 2002–2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ueki, K.; Yoshizawa, K.; Saito, Y.; Takayama, A.; Baba, N.; Kimura, Y.; Koizumi, M.; Fujimoto, K.; Iguchi, R.; Sato, M.; et al. Evaluation of condylar surface CT values related to condylar height reduction after orthognathic surgery. J. Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2021, 49, 639–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bethge, L.S.; Ballon, A.; Mack, M.; Landes, C. Intraoperative condyle positioning by sonographic monitoring in orthognathic surgery verified by MRI. J. Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015, 43, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ueki, K.; Yoshizawa, K.; Moroi, A.; Tsutsui, T.; Hotta, A.; Hiraide, R.; Takayama, A.; Tsunoda, T.; Saito, Y.; Sato, M.; et al. Relationship between occlusal force and condylar morphology in class II and III after bi-maxillary osteotomy. J. Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018, 46, 2103–2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Sakar, O.; Calisir, F.; Oztas, E.; Marsan, G. Evaluation of the effects of temporomandibular joint disk displacement and its progression on dentocraniofacial morphology in symptomatic patients using lateral cephalometric analysis. Cranio 2011, 29, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Byun, E.S.; Ahn, S.J.; Kim, T.W. Relationship between internal derangement of the temporomandibular joint and dentofacial morphology in women with anterior open bite. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2005, 128, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Yin, Q.; Bi, R.; Abotaleb, B.; Jiang, N.; Li, Y.; Zhu, S. Changes in the position of the condyle after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy in patients with mandibular retrusion and protrusion: A new condyle: Fossa matching concept. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 57, 1086–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shu, C.; Xiong, X.; Huang, L.; Liu, Y. The relation of cephalometric features to internal derangements of the temporomandibular joint: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Orthod. Craniofac Res. 2021, 24, 305–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ye, C.; Fan, P.; Zhang, J.; Cheng, Q.; Xiong, X.; Wang, J. Craniofacial Morphology of Temporomandibular Disorder Patients with Different Disc Positions: Stratifying Features Based on Sex and Sagittal Skeletal Pattern. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Manfredini, D.; Vano, M.; Peretta, R.; Guarda-Nardini, L. Jaw clenching effects in relation to two extreme occlusal features: Patterns of diagnoses in a TMD patient population. Cranio 2014, 32, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Manfredini, D.; Stellini, E.; Marchese-Ragona, R.; Guarda-Nardini, L. Are occlusal features associated with different temporomandibular disorder diagnoses in bruxers? Cranio 2014, 32, 283–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Al-Moraissi, E.A.; Wolford, L.M.; Perez, D.; Laskin, D.M.; Ellis, E. Does Orthognathic Surgery Cause or Cure Temporomandibular Disorders? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017, 75, 1835–1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Abrahamsson, C.; Henrikson, T.; Nilner, M.; Sunzel, B.; Bondemark, L.; Ekberg, E.C. TMD before and after correction of dentofacial deformities by orthodontic and orthognathic treatment. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2013, 42, 752–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Paunonen, J.; Helminen, M.; Sipilä, K.; Peltomäki, T. Temporomandibular disorders in Class II malocclusion patients after surgical mandibular advancement treatment as compared to non-treated patients. J. Oral Rehabil. 2019, 46, 605–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Borzabadi-Farahani, A.; Olkun, H.K.; Eslamian, L.; Eslamipour, F. Functional needs in orthognathic patients with different sagittal skeletal discrepancies. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2024, 138, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Westermark, A.; Shayeghi, F.; Thor, A. Temporomandibular dysfunction in 1516 patients before and after orthognathic surgery. Int. J. Adult Orthodon Orthognath. Surg. 2001, 16, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  41. Wolford, L.M.; Reiche-Fischel, O.; Mehra, P. Changes in temporomandibular joint dysfunction after orthognathic surgery. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2003, 61, 655–660; discussion 661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Rowlerson, A.; Raoul, G.; Daniel, Y.; Close, J.; Maurage, C.A.; Ferri, J.; Sciote, J.J. Fiber-type differences in masseter muscle associated with different facial morphologies. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2005, 127, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Panula, K.; Somppi, M.; Finne, K.; Oikarinen, K. Effects of orthognathic surgery on temporomandibular joint dysfunction. A controlled prospective 4-year follow-up study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2000, 29, 183–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Dervis, E.; Tuncer, E. Long-term evaluations of temporomandibular disorders in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery compared with a control group. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2002, 94, 554–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Aghabeigi, B.; Hiranaka, D.; Keith, D.A.; Kelly, J.P.; Crean, S.J. Effect of orthognathic surgery on the temporomandibular joint in patients with anterior open bite. Int. J. Adult Orthodon Orthognath. Surg. 2001, 16, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  46. Aldayel, A.M.; AlGahnem, Z.J.; Alrashidi, I.S.; Nunu, D.Y.; Alzahrani, A.M.; Alburaidi, W.S.; Alanazi, F.; Alamari, A.S.; Alotaibi, R.M. Orthodontics and Temporomandibular Disorders: An Overview. Cureus 2023, 15, e47049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Gurbanov, V.; Bas, B.; Öz, A.A. Evaluation of Stresses on Temporomandibular Joint in the Use of Class II and III Orthodontic Elastics: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 78, 705–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Castroflorio, T.; Bargellini, A.; Lucchese, A.; Manuelli, M.; Casasco, F.; Cugliari, G.; Cioffi, I.; Deregibus, A. Effects of clear aligners on sleep bruxism: Randomized controlled trial. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents 2018, 32, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  49. Magnusson, T.; Ahlborg, G.; Finne, K.; Nethander, G.; Svartz, K. Changes in temporomandibular joint pain-dysfunction after surgical correction of dentofacial anomalies. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1986, 15, 707–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Thomas, D.C.; Singer, S.R.; Markman, S. Temporomandibular Disorders and Dental Occlusion: What Do We Know so Far? Dent. Clin. North. Am. 2023, 67, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lekaviciute, R.; Kriauciunas, A. Relationship Between Occlusal Factors and Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Literature Review. Cureus 2024, 16, e54130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Farook, T.H.; Ramees, L.; Dudley, J. Variables Associated with Jaw Clicking in a South Australian Population: A Cross-Sectional Study. Oral 2024, 4, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 13 04909 g001
Figure 1. Malocclusion Angle classification of the patients who attended a consultation for temporomandibular disorders (TMD).
Figure 1. Malocclusion Angle classification of the patients who attended a consultation for temporomandibular disorders (TMD).
Jcm 13 04909 g001
Jcm 13 04909 g002
Figure 2. Distribution of patients with malocclusion I and II by the different degrees of severity using the Dimitroulis classification.
Figure 2. Distribution of patients with malocclusion I and II by the different degrees of severity using the Dimitroulis classification.
Jcm 13 04909 g002
Table 1. Global clinical outcomes. DDwR—disc displacement with reduction; DDwoR—disc displacement without reduction; DDwR/DDwoR—disc displacement with reduction and without reduction; MMO—maximum mouth opening; SD—standard deviation; TMJ—temporomandibular joint; woD—absence of displacement.
Table 1. Global clinical outcomes. DDwR—disc displacement with reduction; DDwoR—disc displacement without reduction; DDwR/DDwoR—disc displacement with reduction and without reduction; MMO—maximum mouth opening; SD—standard deviation; TMJ—temporomandibular joint; woD—absence of displacement.
Clinical OutcomeMean ± SD or n (%)
Arthralgia683 (63.7%)
TMJ arthralgia level (VAS, 0–10)6.54 ± 2.54
Mouth opening limitation684 (58.5%)
MMO (mm)39.59 ± 8.46
Myalgia Degree (0–3)2.16 ± 1.04
TMJ Crepitus251 (23.3%)
TMJ Clicks541 (50.2%)
Disc Position
woD299 (25.6%)
DDwR396 (33.8%)
DDwoR265 (22.6%)
DDwR/DDwoR87 (7.4%)
Dimitroulis Classification
1317 (27.3%)
2413 (35.6%)
3228 (19.7%)
4196 (16.9%)
56 (0.5%)
Oral Signs of Bruxism368 (31.5%)
Table 2. Clinical outcomes comparing dental malocclusion Class I vs. Class II vs. Class III. DDwR—disc displacement with reduction; DDwoR—disc displacement without reduction; DDwR/DDwoR—disc displacement with reduction and without reduction; MMO—maximum mouth opening; SD—standard deviation; TMJ—temporomandibular joint; woD—absence of displacement.
Table 2. Clinical outcomes comparing dental malocclusion Class I vs. Class II vs. Class III. DDwR—disc displacement with reduction; DDwoR—disc displacement without reduction; DDwR/DDwoR—disc displacement with reduction and without reduction; MMO—maximum mouth opening; SD—standard deviation; TMJ—temporomandibular joint; woD—absence of displacement.
Clinical OutcomeClass I
Mean ± SD or n (%)		Class II
Mean ± SD or n (%)		Class III
Mean ± SD or n (%)		Class I vs. II
p-Value, Cramer’s V or U, z
Arthralgia506 (62.8%)100 (73.0%)6 (60.0%)0.021, 0.075
TMJ arthralgia level (VAS, 0–10)6.62 ± 2.506.57 ± 2.456.56 ± 2.530.749, 48,120, −0.319
Limitation of mouth opening477 (58.7%)96 (69.6%)7 (70.0%)0.016, 0.078
MMO (mm)39.93 ± 8.6738.13 ± 7.7842.40 ± 5.850.01, 63,060, 5, −2.575
Myalgia Degree 0.002, 0.104
0114 (14.1%)12 (8.7%)1 (10.0%)
174 (9.1%)7 (3.6%)0 (0%)
2216 (26.7%)49 (35.5%)5 (50.0%)
3406 (50.1%)72 (52.2%)4 (40.0%)
TMJ clicks405 (50.0%)66 (47.8%)2 (20.0%)0.637, −0.015
TMJ crepitus173 (21.4%)42 (30.7%)1 (10.0%)0.017, 0.078
Oral signs of bruxism534 (67.0%)103 (75.7%)6 (60.0%)0.043, 0.066
Disc Position
woD226 (29.4%)33 (24.6%)2 (22.2%)0.002, 0128
DDwR305 (39.6%)37 (27.6%)1 (11.1%)
DDwoR186 (24.2%)49 (36.6%)5 (55.6%)
DDwR/DDwoR53 (6.9%)15 (11.2%)1 (11.1%)
Table 3. Clinical outcomes compared in cases of malocclusion and comparing patients with/without oral signs of bruxism. DDwR—disc displacement with reduction; DDwoR—disc displacement without reduction; DDwR/DDwoR—disc displacement with reduction and without reduction; MMO—maximum mouth opening; SD—standard deviation; TMJ—temporomandibular joint; woD—absence of displacement.
Table 3. Clinical outcomes compared in cases of malocclusion and comparing patients with/without oral signs of bruxism. DDwR—disc displacement with reduction; DDwoR—disc displacement without reduction; DDwR/DDwoR—disc displacement with reduction and without reduction; MMO—maximum mouth opening; SD—standard deviation; TMJ—temporomandibular joint; woD—absence of displacement.
Clinical OutcomeWithout Oral Signs of Bruxism
Mean ± SD or n (%)		Oral Signs of Bruxism
Mean ± SD or n (%)		Class I vs. II
p-Value, Cramer’s V or U, z
Arthralgia21 (61.8%)78 (76.5%)0.095, 0.143
TMJ arthralgia level (VAS, 0–10)5.76 ± 2.886.75 ± 2.300.131, 1390, 5, −1.51
Limitation mouth opening23 (67.6%)72 (69.6%)0.805, 0.021
MMO (mm)39.50 ± 9.6237.99 ± 6.980.090, 1411, 5, −1.69
Myalgia Degree 0.003, 0.319
07 (20.6%)4 (4.9%)
13 (8.8%)2 (1.9%)
213 (38.2%)36 (35.0%)
311 (32.4%)60 (58.3%)
TMJ clicks18 (52.9%)48 (46.6%)0.521, −0.055
TMJ crepitus8 (23.5%)34 (33.3%)0.284, 0.092
Disc Position
woD10 (30.3%)23 (23.0%)0.048, 0.240
DDwR14 (42.4%)23 (23.0%)
DDwoR7 (21.2%)41 (41.0%)
DDwR/DDwoR2 (6.1%)13 (13.0%)
Dimitroulis Classification
17 (20.6%)16 (15.5%)
215 (44.1%)32 (31.1%)
39 (26.5%)19 (18.4%)0.045, 0.267
42 (5.9%)34 (33.0%)
51 (2.9%)2 (1.9%)
Table 4. Comparing dental malocclusion Class I vs. Class II according to previous treatments.
Table 4. Comparing dental malocclusion Class I vs. Class II according to previous treatments.
Previous Treatment/Risk FactorClass I
n (%)		Class II
n (%)		p-Value, Cramer’s V
Orthognathic surgery1 (0.1%)0 (0.0%)0.680, 0.013
Orthodontic treatment117 (14.4%)25 (18.1%)0.259, 0.037
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

Ângelo, D.F.; Faria-Teixeira, M.C.; Maffia, F.; Sanz, D.; Sarkis, M.; Marques, R.; Mota, B.; João, R.S.; Cardoso, H.J. Association of Malocclusion with Temporomandibular Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 4909. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164909

AMA Style

Ângelo DF, Faria-Teixeira MC, Maffia F, Sanz D, Sarkis M, Marques R, Mota B, João RS, Cardoso HJ. Association of Malocclusion with Temporomandibular Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(16):4909. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164909

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ângelo, David Faustino, Maria Cristina Faria-Teixeira, Francesco Maffia, David Sanz, Marcella Sarkis, Rute Marques, Beatriz Mota, Ricardo São João, and Henrique José Cardoso. 2024. "Association of Malocclusion with Temporomandibular Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 16: 4909. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164909

APA Style

Ângelo, D. F., Faria-Teixeira, M. C., Maffia, F., Sanz, D., Sarkis, M., Marques, R., Mota, B., João, R. S., & Cardoso, H. J. (2024). Association of Malocclusion with Temporomandibular Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 13(16), 4909. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164909

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