Coronal joint spaces of the Temporomandibular joint: systematic review and meta-analysis

• Eugénio Martins ^[1] ; Joana-Cristina Silva ^[1] ; Carlos A. Pires ^[1] ; Maria-João-Feio Ponces-Ramalhão ^[1] ; Jorge-Dias Lopes ^[1]
  1. [1] Universidade Do Porto

     Universidade Do Porto

     Santo Ildefonso, Portugal

     
• Localización: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, ISSN-e 1989-5488, Vol. 7, Nº. 3 (Julio), 2015, págs. 435-440
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Resumen

  • Introduction: The joint space measurements of the temporomandibular joint have been used to determine the condyle position variation. Therefore, the aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the coronal joint spaces measurements of the temporomandibular joint.

    Materials and Methods: An electronic database search was performed with the terms “condylar position”; “joint space”AND”TMJ”. Inclusionary criteria included: tomographic 3D imaging of the TMJ, presentation of at least two joint space measurements on the coronal plane. Exclusionary criteria were: mandibular fractures, animal studies, surgery, presence of genetic or chronic diseases, case reports, opinion or debate articles or unpublished material. The risk of bias of each study was judged as high, moderate or low according to the “Cochrane risk of bias tool”. The values used in the meta-analysis were the medial, superior and lateral joint space measurements and their differences between the right and left joint.

    Results: From the initial search 2706 articles were retrieved. After excluding the duplicates and all the studies that did not match the eligibility criteria 4 articles classified for final review. All the retrieved articles were judged as low level of evidence. All of the reviewed studies were included in the meta-analysis concluding that the mean coronal joint space values were: medial joint space 2.94 mm, superior 2.55 mm and lateral 2.16 mm.

    Conclusions: the analysis also showed high levels of heterogeneity. Right and left comparison did not show statistically significant differences.