Cross-sectional study finds 19% prevalence of temporomandibular disorders in university students, suggesting stronger links with functional occlusal parameters than static traits.
Background Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) involve dysfunction and pain in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and its associated structures. Although multifactorial, the influence of occlusal factors on TMD remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of TMD in young adults and to examine its association with functional and static occlusal parameters. Aim To determine the prevalence of TMD and evaluate the relationship between TMD and occlusal characteristics in university students. Materials and Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted among 200 university students aged between 18 and 28 years. TMD was diagnosed using the diagnostic criteria (DC)/TMD Axis I Pain Screener and a clinical examination. Functional and static occlusal parameters, including centric relation-maximum intercuspation (CR-MIP) discrepancy, excursive movements, mouth opening, overjet, overbite, midline deviation, and molar relationship, were clinically assessed in an equal number of participants with signs and symptoms of TMD and non-TMD. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 25, applying descriptive statistics and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with significance set at P < .05. Results The overall prevalence of TMD was reported to be 19%. Functional discrepancies, such as CR-MIP position shift and limited lateral excursive movements, were significantly more common in individuals with TMD ( P < .0001). Reduced maximum mouth opening was also observed. Among static traits, overbite showed a significant correlation ( P = .021), whereas overjet, molar relationship, and crossbites did not. A cumulative effect was noted in participants with multiple occlusal discrepancies. Conclusion TMD is prevalent among young adults, with functional occlusal discrepancies showing a stronger association than static traits.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Trehan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: