Premium
Oro‐facial pain and temporomandibular disorders classification systems: A critical appraisal and future directions
Author(s) -
Klasser G. D.,
Manfredini D.,
Goulet J.P.,
De Laat A.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of oral rehabilitation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.991
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2842
pISSN - 0305-182X
DOI - 10.1111/joor.12590
Subject(s) - critical appraisal , scope (computer science) , psychosocial , systematic review , inclusion (mineral) , computer science , taxonomy (biology) , process (computing) , orofacial pain , medicine , medline , psychology , management science , alternative medicine , physical therapy , psychiatry , pathology , engineering , political science , social psychology , botany , law , biology , programming language , operating system
Summary It is a difficult undertaking to design a classification system for any disease entity, let alone for oro‐facial pain ( OFP ) and more specifically for temporomandibular disorders ( TMD ). A further complication of this task is that both physical and psychosocial variables must be included. To augment this process, a two‐step systematic review, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, of the classification systems published during the last 20 years for OFP and TMD was performed. The first search step identified 190 potential citations which ultimately resulted in only 17 articles being included for in‐depth analysis and review. The second step resulted in only 5 articles being selected for inclusion in this review. Five additional articles and four classification guidelines/criteria were also included due to expansion of the search criteria. Thus, in total, 14 documents comprising articles and guidelines/criteria (8 proposals of classification systems for OFP ; 6 for TMD ) were selected for inclusion in the systematic review. For each, a discussion as to their advantages, strengths and limitations was provided. Suggestions regarding the future direction for improving the classification process with the use of ontological principles rather than taxonomy are discussed. Furthermore, the potential for expanding the scope of axes included in existing classification systems, to include genetic, epigenetic and neurobiological variables, is explored. It is therefore recommended that future classification system proposals be based on combined approaches aiming to provide archetypal treatment‐oriented classifications.