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.

Background: Clear aligners (CA) are among the most chosen orthodontic therapies for patients who require an invisible treatment. Previous studies showed that the thermoforming process and the complexity of the intraoral environment might alter the properties of these devices. The aim of the current prospective clinical study was to assess the thickness changes of the CA after 10 days of intraoral use. The secondary aim was to assess the reproducibility of the thermoforming process, in terms of aligner thickness. Materials and methods: CA from 18 consecutive patients (13 women, 5 men, mean age 28.8 ± 9.6 years) were investigated. Before intraoral exposure (T0), the thickness of the unused CA was measured at different occlusal points on a 3D model with a dedicated software (Geomagic Qualify 2013; 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA). Two CA configurations were studied: passive maxillary aligner (P—no tooth movement; no shape for attachments) and active maxillary aligner (A—tooth movement; shape for attachments and divot). The used aligners were returned after 10 days (T1) and the thickness measurements were repeated. A Student’s t test for paired data (T1 vs. T0) was applied to compare the thicknesses of used and unused devices (significance level after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison was set at p < 0.0014). Furthermore, to study the reproducibility of the thermoforming process, P and A aligners were thermoformed twice, and the thicknesses of the two unused thermoformed devices were compared by means of Student’s t test for paired data (significance level after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison was set at p < 0.0014) and Dahlberg’s error. Results: The thermoforming process showed good reproducibility for both aligner configurations, with a maximum Dahlberg’s error of 0.13 mm. After intraoral use, the thickness of P showed some statistically significant, but not clinically relevant, thickness changes as compared to the unused aligners, while A did not show any significant changes. Conclusion: Considering the thickness changes, the thermoforming process is reliable both with active and passive aligner configurations. Also, the CA examined show good thickness stability after physiological intraoral ageing in a population of healthy adults.

Background: Since in children and adolescence prevalence is assessed mainly on self‐reported or proxy‐reported signs and symptoms; there is a need to develop a more comprehensive standardised process for the collection of clinical information and the diagnosis of TMD in these populations.Objective: To develop new instruments and to adapt the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) for the evaluation of TMD in children and adolescents.Method: A modified Delphi method was used to seek international consensus among TMD experts. Fourteen clinicians and researchers in the field of oro‐facial pain and TMD worldwide were invited to participate in a workshop initiated by the International Network for Orofacial Pain and Related Disorders Methodology (INfORM scientific network) at the General Session of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR, London 2018), as the first step in the Delphi process. Participants discussed the protocols required to make physical diagnoses included in the Axis I of the DC/TMD. Thereafter, nine experts in the field were added, and the first Delphi round was created. This survey included 60 statements for Axis I, and the experts were asked to respond to each statement on a five‐item Likert scale ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’. Consensus level was set at 80% agreement for the first round, and at 70% for the next.Results: After three rounds of the Delphi process, a consensus among TMD experts was achieved and two adapted DC/TMD protocols for Axis I physical diagnoses for children and adolescents were developed.Conclusion: Through international consensus among TMD experts, this study adapted the Axis I of the DC/TMD for use in evaluating TMD in children and adolescents.

Objective: To compare the surface roughness of different orthodontic archwires. Materials and Methods: Four nickel-titanium wires (Sentalloy®, Sentalloy® High Aesthetic, Titanium Memory ThermaTi Lite®, and Titanium Memory Esthetic®), three β-titanium wires (TMA®, Colored TMA®, and Beta Titanium®), and one stainless-steel wire (Stainless Steel®) were considered for this study. Three samples for each wire were analyzed by atomic force microscopy (AFM). Three-dimensional images were processed using Gwiddion software, and the roughness average (Ra), the root mean square (Rms), and the maximum height (Mh) values of the scanned surface profile were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's post hoc test ( P < .05). Results: The Ra, Rms, and Mh values were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. Among as-received archwires, the Stainless Steel (Ra = 36.6 ± 5.8; Rms = 48 ± 7.7; Mh = 328.1 ± 64) archwire was less rough than the others (ANOVA, P < .05). The Sentalloy High Aesthetic was the roughest (Ra = 133.5 ± 10.8; Rms = 165.8 ± 9.8; Mh = 949.6 ± 192.1) of the archwires. Conclusions: The surface quality of the wires investigated differed significantly. Ion implantation effectively reduced the roughness of TMA. Moreover, Teflon®-coated Titanium Memory Esthetic was less rough than was ion-implanted Sentalloy High Aesthetic.