Eric Schiffman, DDS, MS/Richard Ohrbach, DDS, PhD/Edmond Truelove, DDS, MSD/John Look, DDS, PhD/Gary Anderson, DDS, MS/Jean-Paul Goulet, DDS, MSD/Thomas List, DDS, Odont Dr/Peter Svensson, DDS, PhD, Dr Odont/Yoly Gonzalez, DDS, MS, MPH/Frank Lobbezoo, DDS, PhD/Ambra Michelotti, DDS/Sharon L. Brooks, DDS, MS/Werner Ceusters, MD/Mark Drangsholt, DDS, PhD/Dominik Ettlin, MD, DDS/Charly Gaul, MD/Louis J. Goldberg, DDS, PhD/Jennifer A. Haythornthwaite, PhD/Lars Hollender, DDS, Odont Dr/Rigmor Jensen, MD, PhD/Mike T. John, DDS, PhD/Antoon De Laat, DDS, PhD/Reny de Leeuw, DDS, PhD/William Maixner, DDS, PhD/Marylee van der Meulen, PhD/Greg M. Murray, MDS, PhD/Donald R. Nixdorf, DDS, MS/Sandro Palla, Dr Med Dent/Arne Petersson, DDS, Odont Dr/Paul Pionchon, DDS, PhD/Barry Smith, PhD/Corine M. Visscher, PT, PhD/Joanna Zakrzewska, MD, FDSRCSI/Samuel F. Dworkin, DDS, PhD: Aims: The original Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic algorithms have been demonstrated to be reliable. However, the Validation Project determined that the RDC/TMD Axis I validity was below the target sensitivity of ≥ 0.70 and specificity of ≥ 0.95. Consequently, these empirical results supported the development of revised RDC/TMD Axis I diagnostic algorithms that were subsequently demonstrated to be valid for the most common pain-related TMD and for one temporomandibular joint (TMJ) intra-articular disorder. The original RDC/TMD Axis II instruments were shown to be both reliable and valid. Working from these findings and revisions, two international consensus workshops were convened, from which recommendations were obtained for the finalization of new Axis I diagnostic algorithms and new Axis II instruments. Methods: Through a series of workshops and symposia, a panel of clinical and basic science pain experts modified the revised RDC/TMD Axis I algorithms by using comprehensive searches of published TMD diagnostic literature followed by review and consensus via a formal structured process. The panel?s recommendations for further revision of the Axis I diagnostic algorithms were assessed for validity by using the Validation Project?s data set, and for reliability by using newly collected data from the ongoing TMJ Impact Project?the follow-up study to the Validation Project. New Axis II instruments were identified through a comprehensive search of the literature providing valid instruments that, relative to the RDC/TMD, are shorter in length, are available in the public domain, and currently are being used in medical settings. Results: The newly recommended Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) Axis I protocol includes both a valid screener for detecting any pain-related TMD as well as valid diagnostic criteria for differentiating the most common pain-related TMD (sensitivity ≥ 0.86, specificity ≥ 0.98) and for one intra-articular disorder (sensitivity of 0.80 and specificity of 0.97). Diagnostic criteria for other common intra-articular disorders lack adequate validity for clinical diagnoses but can be used for screening purposes. Inter-examiner reliability for the clinical assessment associated with the validated DC/TMD criteria for pain-related TMD is excellent (kappa ≥ 0.85). Finally, a comprehensive classification system that includes both the common and less common TMD is also presented. The Axis II protocol retains selected original RDC/TMD screening instruments augmented with new instruments to assess jaw function as well as behavioral and additional psychosocial factors. The Axis II protocol is divided into screening and comprehensive selfreport instrument sets. The screening instruments? 41 questions assess pain intensity, pain-related disability, psychological distress, jaw functional limitations, and parafunctional behaviors, and a pain drawing is used to assess locations of pain. The comprehensive instruments, composed of 81 questions, assess in further detail jaw functional limitations and psychological distress as well as additional constructs of anxiety and presence of comorbid pain conditions. Conclusion: The recommended evidence-based new DC/TMD protocol is appropriate for use in both clinical and research settings. More comprehensive instruments augment short and simple screening instruments for Axis I and Axis II. These validated instruments allow for identification of patients with a range of simple to complex TMD presentations. J Oral Facial Pain Headache 2014;28:6?27. doi: 10.11607/jop.1151

Summary: There is a need to expand the current temporomandibular disorders' (TMDs) classification to include less common but clinically important disorders. The immediate aim was to develop a consensus‐based classification system and associated diagnostic criteria that have clinical and research utility for less common TMDs. The long‐term aim was to establish a foundation, vis‐à‐vis this classification system, that will stimulate data collection, validity testing and further criteria refinement. A working group [members of the International RDC/TMD Consortium Network of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), members of the Orofacial Pain Special Interest Group (SIG) of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), and members from other professional societies] reviewed disorders for inclusion based on clinical significance, the availability of plausible diagnostic criteria and the ability to operationalise and study the criteria. The disorders were derived from the literature when possible and based on expert opinion as necessary. The expanded TMDs taxonomy was presented for feedback at international meetings. Of 56 disorders considered, 37 were included in the expanded taxonomy and were placed into the following four categories: temporomandibular joint disorders, masticatory muscle disorders, headache disorders and disorders affecting associated structures. Those excluded were extremely uncommon, lacking operationalised diagnostic criteria, not clearly related to TMDs, or not sufficiently distinct from disorders already included within the taxonomy. The expanded TMDs taxonomy offers an integrated approach to clinical diagnosis and provides a framework for further research to operationalise and test the proposed taxonomy and diagnostic criteria.

Background: Manual therapy (MT) and exercise have been extensively used to treat people with musculoskeletal conditions such as temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The evidence regarding their effectiveness provided by early systematic reviews is outdated.Purpose: The aim of this study was to summarize evidence from and evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of MT and therapeutic exercise interventions compared with other active interventions or standard care for treatment of TMD.Data Sources: Electronic data searches of 6 databases were performed, in addition to a manual search.Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials involving adults with TMD that compared any type of MT intervention (eg, mobilization, manipulation) or exercise therapy with a placebo intervention, controlled comparison intervention, or standard care were included. The main outcomes of this systematic review were pain, range of motion, and oral function. Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed.Data Extraction: Data were extracted in duplicate on specific study characteristics.Data Synthesis: The overall evidence for this systematic review was considered low. The trials included in this review had unclear or high risk of bias. Thus, the evidence was generally downgraded based on assessments of risk of bias. Most of the effect sizes were low to moderate, with no clear indication of superiority of exercises versus other conservative treatments for TMD. However, MT alone or in combination with exercises at the jaw or cervical level showed promising effects.Limitations: Quality of the evidence and heterogeneity of the studies were limitations of the study.Conclusions: No high-quality evidence was found, indicating that there is great uncertainty about the effectiveness of exercise and MT for treatment of TMD.

To present a list of key points for good Temporomandibular Disorders (TMDs) clinical practice on behalf of the International Network for Orofacial Pain and Related Disorders Methodology (INfORM) group of the International Association for Dental, Oral and Craniofacial Research (IADR). An open working group discussion was held at the IADR General Session in New Orleans (March 2024), where members of the INfORM group finalized the proposal of a list of 10 key points. The key points covered knowledge on the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. They represent a summary of the current standard of care for management of TMD patients. They are in line with the current need to assist general dental practitioners advance their understanding and prevent inappropriate treatment. The key points can be viewed as a guiding template for other national and international associations to prepare guidelines and recommendations on management of TMDs adapted to the different cultural, social, educational, and healthcare requirements.