# 측두하악장애 환자의 보존적 치료결과의 예측에 관한 연구

• Lee, Hye-Jin (Department of Oral Medicine, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
• Park, June-Sang (Department of Oral Medicine, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
• Ko, Myung-Yun (Department of Oral Medicine, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
• 이혜진 (부산대학교 치과대학 구강내과학교실) ;
• 박준상 (부산대학교 치과대학 구강내과학교실) ;
• 고명연 (부산대학교 치과대학 구강내과학교실)
• Published : 2001.06.30

#### Abstract

This study was performed to predict the conservative treatment outcome of TMD patients by investigating the prognostic factors ; symptom duration, history of previous treatment, history of previous medication, history of trauma, disability of daily activity, severity of pain, noise, limitation of mouth opening(LOM) and maximum comfortable opening(MCO). Two hundreds and fifty-four subjects were selected for this study among the TMD patients who had visited the Dept. of Oral Medicine BNUH and been treated conservatively with medication, physical therapy, behavioral treatment, and splint therapy from 1991 to 2000. The subjects were divided into two groups improved or unimproved according to the treatment response following six months of conservative treatment. Those who showed less than 1 on NAS for pain, TMJ noise, and opening limitation belonged to the improved group and those who showed more than 2 on NAS belonged to the unimproved group. The two groups were compared with respect to symptom severity, number of diagnosis, history of trauma, previous treatment, previous medication, and disability of daily activity. A prognostic equation with the factors revealed to be significantly related to the prognosis of conservative treatment was obtained. The obtained results were as follows ; 1. In improved group, mean duration of history was 12 months, mean treatment duration of a patient was 4 months an mean number of treatment was about 10 times. In other words, in unimproved group, mean duration of history was 27.4 months, mean treatment duration of patient was 10.5 months and mean number of treatment was 19 times. 2. In unimproved group, multiple diagnosis, chronicity, disability of daily activity were significantly greater than that of the improved group. 3. Patients in unimproved group revealed severe noise at first visit and smaller maximum comfortable opening comparatively. 4. Prognostic factors such as duration of treatment, number of treatment, multiplicity, and chronicity and disability of daily activity showed a significant relation in prediction of improvement. 5. Prognostic equation with significant variables is as follows ; Y = 1.984 - 0.251Noise + 0.068MCO - 0.673Multiplicity. - 0.958Chronicity - 0.065Disability. Classification accuracy of 70.3 %, sensitivity of 71.4% and specificity of 66.7% were shown. 6. Prognostic equation with all factors is as follows : Y = 1.599 - 0.038Pain - 0.256Noise - 0.006Limitation + 0.068MCO - 0.580Multiplicity - 1.025Chronicity - 0.720Disability - 0.329Medication - 0.087Treatment + 0.740Trauma. Classification accuracy of 70.3 %, sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 64.3% were shown. 7. Prognostic value of the improved group with significant factors was $1.0446{\pm}1.0726$ and prognostic value of the unimproved group with significant factors was $-0.013{\pm}1.0146$. Prognostic value of the improved group with all factors was $1.0465{\pm}1.0849$ and prognostic value of the unimproved group with all factors was $-0.057{\pm}1.0611$.