RESULTS
Joint tenderness was the most frequent clinical finding (18 out of 28 joints) (64% ), followed by joint noise (16 out of 28 joints) (57%), muscle tenderness (10 out of 28 joints) (36%), and deflection/deviation was found only in 9 out of 28 joints (32%) and was the least frequent clinical finding in the present study. Thirty-six percent (36%) of the patients showed limited mouth opening (5 out of 14 patients).
14 joints were clinically diagnosed as ADDWR (50%) out of a total of 28 joints and were the most prevalent in RDC diagnostic subgroups, whereas 3 joints were clinically diagnosed to be ADDWOR (11%) and were least prevalent among the RDC diagnostic subgroups. 13 joints were diagnosed as No disc displacement (NDD) (39%).
Out of 28 TM, joints-13 were diagnosed by MRI as No Disc Displacement (NDD) (46.4%), MRI diagnosed 11 as ADDWR (39.3%), 2 were diagnosed by MRI as ADDWOR (7.1%), and 2 joints were categorized as others (7.1 %) {Others-Disc was not seen in MRI}.
Out of 28 TMJ joints (14 patients), 11 were diagnosed normal with RDC/TMD criteria; among these 11 normal TMJ joints, 4 were confirmed as normal by MRI (the remaining 7 joints were diagnosed as ADDWR). Out of 28 TMJ joints (14 patients), 14 were diagnosed ADDWR with RDC criteria; among these 14, 3 were confirmed as ADDWR by MRI (out of the remaining joints, 8 joints were diagnosed as NDD and 2 as ADDWOR). Out of 28 TMJ joints (14 patients), 3 were diagnosed ADDWOR with RDC criteria; among these 3 TMJ joints, MRI has shown 1 ADDWR, 1 NDD and 1 as others.
RDC/TMD diagnosis’s sensitivity and specificity concerning MRI findings were (36.4%) of sensitivity and (63.6%) of specificity of RDC diagnosis was found for NDD. (21.4%) of sensitivity and (57.4%) of specificity of RDC diagnosis was observed for ADDWR. (0%) of sensitivity and (33%) of specificity of RDC diagnosis was observed for ADDWOR. Twenty-five percent (25%) of sensitivity and Fifty-seven point one percent (57.1%) of specificity were observed for RDC diagnosis with respect to MRI in the total sample.
A comparison of clinical examination findings with MRI diagnosis is summarized in Table 1.
Consensus inter-observer diagnosis was taken from the three different observers, who interpreted the MRI findings individually. Each observer was blind to each other’s MRI analysis and the RDC clinical diagnosis.
For left TMJ, Kappa values were analyzed between observer 2 and observer 1 and were found to be 0.421. (Moderate). Kappa values were analyzed between observer 2 and observer 3 and were found to be 0.413 (Moderate).
For Right TMJ, Kappa values were analyzed between observer 2 and observer 1 and were found to be 0.407. (Fair). Kappa values were analyzed between observer 2 and observer 3 and were found to be 0.412. (Moderate). Table 2-5