Temporomandibular disorder subtypes according to self‐reported physical and psychosocial variables in female patients: a re‐evaluation
- 11 February 2005
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
- Vol. 32 (3), 166-173
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01432.x
Abstract
Several studies support the relevance of psychological and psychosocial factors in the assessment and management of chronic musculoskeletal pain disorders, including temporomandibular pain disorders (TMDs). The aim of this study was to re-evaluate subtyping approach used in an earlier study (TI Suvinen, KR Hanes, JA Gerschman, PC Reade. J Orofac Pain 1997;11:200) and to compare perceived physical symptoms, psychological, coping and psychosocial variables between subtypes of patients who seek treatment for their temporomandibular pain and dysfunction. A total of 41 consecutive female patients were assessed multiaxially for physical symptoms, coping style and effectiveness and illness behaviour by a previously validated Temporomandibular Pain Dysfunction Questionnaire (TI Suvinen, KR Hanes, JA Gerschman, PC Reade. J Orofac Pain 1997;11:200). Additional measures of psychosocial variables included the global scores of the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventory and Part I of the Multidimensional Pain Inventory. Subtypes were generated using an iterative partitioning method, k-means cluster analysis. Three clusters were identified and termed as Simple (22%), Intermediate (41%) and Complex (37%) temporomandibular disorders subtypes. Significant differences (P < 0.05) were found between clusters in psychological (coping style and effectiveness, disease conviction and affective disturbance) and in psychosocial variables (daily interference and social, work and family satisfaction), but not between physical variables. The results support previous studies that have shown differences in psychosocial variables in the presentation and subtyping of TMDs and the biopsychosocial orientation in assessment. The findings need to be reverified in a larger sample along specific physical diagnoses, but it is tentatively proposed how the three subtypes could be used in the classification of temporomandibular pain patients to guide management, based on the constellation of predominant psychological and psychosocial illness impact variables.Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- National institutes of health technology assessment conference statement: Management of temporomandibular disorders, April 29–May 1 1996Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology, 1997
- Behavioral and educational modalitiesOral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology, 1997
- Differential treatment responses of TMD patients as a function of psychological characteristicsPain, 1995
- Comparison of the efficacy of electromyographic biofeedback, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and conservative medical interventions in the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1993
- Comparison of the efficacy of electromyographic biofeedback, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and conservative medical interventions in the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1993
- An empirical taxometric alternative to traditional classification of temporomandibular disordersPain, 1989
- Methodology Review: Clustering MethodsApplied Psychological Measurement, 1987
- The West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI)Pain, 1985
- Occlusal relationship in patients with pain‐dysfunction symptoms in the temporomandibular jointsJournal of Oral Rehabilitation, 1983
- PSYCHOGENIC REGIONAL PAIN ALIAS HYSTERICAL PAINBrain, 1961