- 作者列表："Türp JC","Schindler HJ
BACKGROUND:Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are typically characterized by pain in the masticatory muscles and temporomandibular joints (TMJs) and by limitation of mandibular mobility. In June 2019, the German Society of Craniomandibular Function and Disorders presented a screening tool to identify individuals with TMDs. The assessment tool consists of patient history (three questions related to jaw pain, one question related to impaired mandibular mobility) and a clinical examination (palpation of masticatory muscles and TMJs; evaluation of maximum jaw opening; assessment of the presence of occlusal disturbances; documentation of TMJ noises). OBJECTIVES:The present article focusses on two questions: (1) Which of the nine parts of the tool are appropriate, and which are not? (2) In general, can screening for TMDs be recommended? CONCLUSION:While the anamnestic questions, as well as the assessment of maximum mandibular opening, reflect the clinically relevant symptoms and signs of TMD patients, the remaining four clinical measures do not. Furthermore, TMD screening for painful TMDs appears unnecessary because patients suffering from orofacial pain and/or restricted mandibular mobility are likely to consult a therapist by themselves. Therefore, the use of this screening tool may lead to overdiagnosis, possibly resulting in nonindicated diagnostic and therapeutic measures.
背景: 颞下颌关节紊乱病 (TMDs) 的典型特征是咀嚼肌和颞下颌关节 (TMJs) 疼痛和下颌活动受限。2019 年 6 月，德国颅颌功能和障碍学会提出了一种筛查工具，用于识别TMDs个体。评估工具包括患者病史 (三个与下颌疼痛相关的问题，一个与下颌活动度受损相关的问题) 和一个临床检查 (咀嚼肌和颞下颌关节的触诊; 最大颌开口的评价; 评估咬合紊乱的存在; 记录TMJ噪声)。 目标: 本文关注两个问题: (1) 工具的九个部分中哪一个是合适的，哪些不是？(2) 一般情况下，是否可以推荐进行TMDs筛查？ 结论: 虽然记忆问题以及下颌最大开口的评估反映了TMD患者的临床相关症状和体征，但其余四项临床措施没有。此外，TMD筛查疼痛性TMDs似乎没有必要，因为患有口面部疼痛和/或下颌活动受限的患者可能会自行咨询治疗师。因此，使用这种筛查工具可能导致过度诊断，可能导致无指征的诊断和治疗措施。
METHODS:BACKGROUND:The anterior oronasal fistulae neighboring the alveolar cleft could persist or reappear after the alveolar reconstruction with cancellous bone grafting. The persistent symptomatic anterior oronasal fistulae need to be repaired, but surgery remains a challenge in cleft care. Surprisingly, this issue has rarely been reported in the literature. The purpose of this long-term study was to report a single surgeon experience with a therapeutic protocol for persistent symptomatic anterior oronasal fistula repair. METHODS:This is a retrospective study of consecutive patients with Veau type III and IV clefts and persistent symptomatic anterior oronasal fistulae managed according to a therapeutic protocol from 1997 to 2018. Depending on fistula size, patients were treated with local flaps associated with an interpositional graft or two-stage tongue flaps (small/medium or large fistulae, respectively). The surgical outcomes were classified as "good" (complete fistula closure with no symptoms), "fair" (asymptomatic narrow fistula remained), or "poor" (failure with persistent symptoms). RESULTS:Forty-four patients with persistent symptomatic anterior oronasal fistulae were reconstructed with local flaps associated with interpositional fascia or dermal fat grafting (52.3%) or two-stage tongue flaps (47.7%). Most of patients (93.2%) presented "good" outcomes, ranging from 87% to 100% (local and tongue flaps, respectively). Three (6.8%) patients presented symptomatic residual fistula ("poor" outcomes). CONCLUSIONS:For the repair of persistent symptomatic anterior oronasal fistulae, this therapeutic protocol provided satisfactory outcome with low fistula recurrence rate.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:Methadone is a vital treatment for women with opioid use disorder in pregnancy. Previous reports suggested an association between methadone exposure and Pierre Robin sequence (PRS), a rare craniofacial anomaly. We assessed the association between gestational methadone exposure and PRS. DESIGN/SETTING:This case-malformed control study used European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies population-based registries in Ireland, the Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Croatia, Malta, Portugal, Germany, Wales, Norway and Spain, 1995-2011. PATIENTS:Cases included PRS based on International Classification of Disease (ICD), Ninth Edition-British Paediatric Association (BPA) code 75 603 or ICD, Tenth Edition-BPA code Q8708. Malformed controls were all non-PRS anomalies, excluding genetic conditions, among live births, fetal deaths from 20 weeks' gestation and terminations of pregnancy for fetal anomalies. An exploratory analysis assessed the association between methadone exposure and other congenital anomalies (CAs) excluding PRS. Methadone exposure was ascertained from medical records and maternal interview. RESULTS:Among 87 979 CA registrations, there were 127 methadone-exposed pregnancies and 336 PRS cases. There was an association between methadone exposure and PRS (OR adjusted for registry 12.3, 95% CI 5.7 to 26.8). In absolute terms, this association reflects a risk increase from approximately 1-12 cases per 10 000 births. A raised OR was found for cleft palate (adjusted OR 5.0, 95% CI 2.7 to 9.2). CONCLUSIONS:These findings suggest that gestational methadone exposure is associated with PRS. The association may be explained by unmeasured confounding factors. The small increased risk of PRS in itself does not alter the risk-benefit balance for gestational methadone use. The association with cleft palate, a more common CA, should be assessed with independent data.
METHODS::Orthopedic treatment to improve deficient maxillary growth of cleft lip and palate patients is an important part of treatment. The success of this treatment is strongly dependent on the time of initiation of therapy. There has been a large controversy in the available literature regarding the skeletal age of these patients. The aim of the present study was to compare the skeletal age of cleft lip and palate patients with normal individuals.37 unilateral and 14 bilateral cleft lip and palate patients and 47 healthy individuals participated in this cross-sectional study. The patients were classified into 8 to 10 and 11 to 14-year-old individuals. Cervical vertebral maturational stage of participants was evaluated in the lateral cephalometry. The skeletal age of cleft lip and palate patients was compared with normal controls. Chi-square was used for statistical analysis. There was not a significant difference in the skeletal developmental stage of unilateral and bilateral cleft compared to their normal peers according to their age and sex. Also, significant difference in skeletal maturational stage of cleft lip and palate patients was not found between boys and girls (P = 0.8). Similarly, no significant difference was found in the skeletal age of the 3 studied groups without considering the age and sex of participants (P = 0.5). Regarding the similar skeletal maturational stage of cleft lip and palate patients with normal controls in our study, their maxillofacial orthopedic treatment can be initiated at similar time to normal peers.