Osteoarthritis and synovitis as major pathoses of the temporomandibular joint: comparison of clinical diagnosis with arthroscopic morphology

Abstract

Purpose: The purposes of this investigation were to determine how common osteoarthritis and synovitis are in patients with severe, recalcitrant temporomandibular joint (TMJ) symptoms using clinical diagnostic criteria as well as arthroscopic examination, and to compare the accuracy of the clinical and arthroscopic diagnoses with respect to specificity and sensitivity.

Patients and methods: Clinical and arthroscopic diagnoses were established in 126 joints of 84 patients with severe TMJ symptoms recalcitrant to conservative therapy. All joints were classified as having osteoarthritis (OA) or no osteoarthritis (non-OA) and synovitis (syn) or no synovitis (non-syn) using clinical and arthroscopic criteria. Chi-squared analysis was used to determine whether there was a relationship between the clinical and arthroscopic diagnoses. Preoperative clinical diagnoses were compared with arthroscopic morphologic diagnoses to determine the specificity and sensitivity of the clinical diagnostic criteria for synovitis and osteoarthritis.

Results: A preoperative clinical diagnosis of OA was established in 59 of 126 joints (47%) compared with an arthroscopic diagnoses of OA in 82 of 126 joints (65%). Chi-squared analysis showed a significant relationship between the clinical and arthroscopic diagnosis of OA. A clinical diagnosis of OA was associated with a high specificity (.977); however, there were 23 of 82 (.293) false-negative findings and a sensitivity of only .707. A preoperative clinical diagnosis of synovitis was established in 114 of 126 joints (90%), compared with an arthroscopic diagnosis of synovitis in 112 of 126 (89%). Chi-squared analysis did not show a significant relationship between the clinical and arthroscopic diagnosis of synovitis. A clinical diagnosis of synovitis was associated with a high sensitivity (.920); however, there were 11 of 14 false-positive findings (.786) associated with a low specificity (.214).

Conclusions: Although there was high specificity for the clinical diagnosis of OA, the sensitivity was very low. (Comparison of clinical and arthroscopic diagnoses showed that osteoarthritis frequently escapes clinical detection. The clinical diagnosis of synovitis showed that low specificity and symptoms may be caused by other pathoses.