Objective. To evaluate the evidence for the efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of disk position and configuration, disk perforation, joint effusion, and osseous and bone marrow changes in the temporomandibular joint. Study design. A PubMed literature search with specific indexing terms and a hand search were made. Two reviewers assessed the level of evidence of relevant publications as high, moderate, or low. Based on this, the evidence grade for diagnostic efficacy was rated as strong, moderately strong, limited, or insufficient. Results. The literature search yielded 494 titles, of which 22 were relevant. No publication had a high level of evidence, and 12 had moderate and 10 low levels of evidence. The evidence grade for diagnostic efficacy expressed as sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values was insufficient. Conclusion. That evidence is insufficient emphasizes the need for high-quality studies on the diagnostic efficacy of MRI, incorporating accepted methodologic criteria.

The aim of this study was to correlate clinical diagnoses in temporomandibular disorders patients suffering from pain diagnosed as arthralgia/osteoarthritis or myofascial pain according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for temporomandibular disorders with findings made on magnetic resonance imaging. The temporomandibular joints of 60 consecutive patients, 41 with arthralgia/osteoarthritis and 19 with myofascial pain, were examined clinically and with magnetic resonance imaging. The most common magnetic resonance imaging findings were disc displacements and structural bone changes, which were found in both pain groups. However, disc displacements were found significantly (p = 0.002) more often in the arthralgia/osteoarthritis group. 104 joints were found to have no clinical diagnosis of disc displacements, but 64 of these joints had findings of disc displacements on magnetic resonance imaging. Joint fluid was found both in the arthralgia/osteoarthritis group (20 patients) and in the myofascial pain group (5 patients). Patients having a combination of disc displacement and joint fluid were significantly (p = 0.047) more common in the arthralgia/osteoarthritis group. In conclusion, the magnetic resonance imaging findings of disc displacement and structural bone changes were common in temporomandibular disorders patients with pain of both myogenous and arthrogenous origin. The clinical diagnoses for subdivision into myogenous and arthrogenous pain groups were not confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging.

To investigate the short-term efficacy of a resilient appliance in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) suffering from pain, a randomized, controlled trial was performed in 80 recruited TMD pain patients. They were randomly allocated to one of two groups: treatment with a resilient appliance or treatment with a hard, palatal, non-occluding appliance. The primary treatment outcome measure was judged positive when patients' TMD pain at worst, according to the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), decreased by at least 30%. One additional treatment outcome was reduction of characteristic pain intensity. Number needed to treat was measured on the basis of primary treatment outcome at 10 weeks. At baseline, patient characteristics and TMD pain did not differ between the groups. There were no significant differences between groups regarding a 30% reduction in VAS-reported TMD pain at worst at 10 weeks' follow-up; 61% in the treatment group and 46% in the control group. After 6 and 10 weeks of treatment, CPI decreased in both groups. Number needed to treat was 9.1 for both the resilient and the control appliance therapy during 10 weeks. There was no statistically significant difference between the resilient appliance and the non-occluding control appliance in reducing TMD pain from a short-term perspective.

The aim of this research was to study if changes in condyle position in temporomandibular disorders (TMD) patients could be a factor that is affected by resilient appliance therapy and if it influences the treatment outcome. The study investigated 48 patients randomly assigned to a treatment group (T group = 21 patients, using resilient appliance) or a control group (C group = 27 patients, using nonoccluding appliance). Changes in the condyle-fossa relationship (with and without the appliance) were determined in an MRI examination. Ten weeks after treatment, the treatment outcome was measured. The results showed that with the appliance, change in condyle position occurred in 76% of the T group and 22% of the C group (p < 0.001). Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the T group and 44% of the C group experienced a successful treatment outcome. Treatment outcome was not related to changes in condyle position in patients with TMD pain.