Observational analysis finds significant links between temporomandibular disorders, malocclusion, and psychosocial distress in prospective orthodontic patients.
Background Emerging research suggests that reduced Oral Health‐Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) in orthodontic patients may be more closely linked to Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) than malocclusion severity. Objectives This study assessed the burden and severity of TMD symptoms in prospective orthodontic patients, examined their relationships with malocclusion severity, somatic symptoms, psychological distress, jaw function and OHRQoL, and identified factors associated with high jaw functional limitation (JFL) and low OHRQoL. Methods Participants completed a survey covering demographics, the Five TMD Symptoms‐Burden screener, Short‐form Fonseca Anamnestic Index, Somatic Symptom Scale‐8, Patient Health Questionnaire‐4, Jaw Functional Limitation Scale‐8 and Oral Health Impact Profile‐14. Data were matched to the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN) and nature of malocclusion, then analysed using Chi‐square/non‐parametric tests and multivariate regression ( α = 0.05). Results Of the 296 participants (mean age 21.6 [SD = 5.6]; 58.1% female), 40.2% had no TMD symptoms, while 15.4% experienced intra‐articular, 8.8% pain‐related and 35.5% combined symptoms. Significant differences in age, within‐race patterns, TMD symptom burden/severity, IOTN‐aesthetic component, somatic symptom burden, psychological distress, JFL and OHRQoL were observed. Moderate correlations were found between TMD burden and TMD severity, somatic burden and OHRQoL ( r s = 0.45–0.67), as well as between TMD severity and somatic burden ( r s = 0.42). Conclusions High JFL was significantly associated with age, sex, race, TMD symptom severity and the nature of malocclusion. Conversely, low OHRQoL was significantly related to age, somatic symptom burden and JFL. Routine TMD screening is essential for prospective orthodontic patients given their high prevalence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yap et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: