↓ Skip to main content

Disk displacement, eccentric condylar position, osteoarthrosis – misnomers for variations of normality? Results and interpretations from an MRI study in two age cohorts

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Oral Health, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Disk displacement, eccentric condylar position, osteoarthrosis – misnomers for variations of normality? Results and interpretations from an MRI study in two age cohorts
Published in
BMC Oral Health, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12903-016-0319-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jens C. Türp, Anna Schlenker, Johannes Schröder, Marco Essig, Marc Schmitter

Abstract

Clinical decision-making and prognostic statements in individuals with manifest or suspected temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) may involve assessment of (a) the position of articular disc relative to the mandibular condyle, (b) the location of the condyle relative to the temporal joint surfaces, and (c) the depth of the glenoid fossa of the temporomandibular joints (TMJs). The aim of this study was twofold: (1) Determination of the prevalence of these variables in two representative population-based birth cohorts. (2) Reinterpretation of the clinical significance of the findings. From existing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the TMJs that had been taken in 2005 and 2006 from 72 subjects born between 1930 and 1932 and between 1950 and 1952, respectively, the condylar position at closed jaw was calculated as percentage displacement of the condyle from absolute centricity. By using the criteria introduced by Orsini et al. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 86:489-97, 1998), a textbook-like disc position at closed jaw was distinguished from an anterior location. TMJ morphology of the temporal joint surfaces was assessed at open jaw by measuring the depth of the glenoid fossa, using the method proposed by Muto et al. (J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52:1269-72, 1994). Frequency distributions were recorded for the condylar and disc positions at closed jaw. Student's t-test with independent samples was used as test of significance to detect differences of condylar positions between the age cohorts (1930 vs. 1950) and the sexes. The significance levels were set at 5%. First, the results from the measurement of the age cohorts were compared without differentiation of sexes, i.e., age cohort 1930-1932 versus age cohort 1950-1952. Subsequently, the age cohorts were compared by sex, i.e., men in cohort 1930-1932 versus men in cohort 1950-1952, and women in cohort 1930-1932 women men in cohort 1950-1952. In both cohorts, condylar position was characterized by great variability. About 50% of the condyles were located centrically, while the other half was either in an anterior or in a posterior position. In both female cohorts, a posterior position predominated, whereas a centric position prevailed among men. Around 75% of the discs were positioned textbook-like, while the remaining forth was located anteriorly. Age had no statistically significant influence on condylar or on disc position. Conversely, comparison between the age groups revealed a statistically significant decrease of the depth of the glenoid fossa in both older cohorts. This age-dependent changes may be interpreted as flattening of the temporal joint surfaces. We call for a re-interpretation of imaging findings because they may insinuate pathology which usually is not present. Instead, anterior or posterior positions of the mandibular condyle as well as an anterior location of the articular disc should be construed as a variation of normalcy. Likewise, flattening of articular surfaces of the TMJs may be considered as normal adaptive responses to increased loading, rather than pathological degenerative changes. Not applicable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Professor 6 7%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 26 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Psychology 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 29 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2019.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#902
of 1,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,327
of 417,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,792 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 417,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.