Temporomandibular eklem osteoartrit bulguları üzerinde ilerleyen yaşın etkisi

Öz

Giriş: Bu çalışmanın amacı, yaşlı hastalarda konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi görüntülerinde temporomandibular eklem osteoartrit (TME OA) bulgularını değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve yöntem: Çalışmaya 167 hasta (136 kadın, 31 erkek) dahil edildi. Çalışmada toplam 334 TME değerlendirildi. OA'nın varlığına göre, eklemler “OA ile” ve “OA olmadan” olarak iki gruba ayrıldı. Herhangi bir osteoartrit bulgusu mevcut olduğunda, eklem “OA ile” grubuna dahil edildi. OA bulguları osteofit, erozyon, düzleşme, skleroz ve psödokist olarak sıralandı. Ayrıca TME iki yaş grubuna ayrıldı: Grup 1 (50-64 yaş) ve grup 2 (65-81 yaş) İstatistiksel analiz için SPSS v20 kullanıldı. OA varlığı açısından cinsiyetler arasında anlamlı fark bulunmadı (p> 0,005). Erozyon, düzleşme ve skleroz için grup 1 ile grup 2 arasında anlamlı fark vardı (p <0.005). Grup 1 ile grup 2 arasında osteofit, ve psödokist için anlamlı fark bulunmadı (p> 0.005). Sonuçlar: Yaşlı hastalarda, ilerleyen yaşla birlikte erozyon, düzleşme ve skleroz gibi osteoartrit radyolojik bulguları daha sık görülebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• temporomandibular eklem
• osteoartrit
• geriyatri

The Effect Of Advancing Age On The Temporomandibular Joint Osteoarthritis Findings

Öz

Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) findings in elder patients with cone beam computed tomography. Materials and methods: One hundred and sixty-seven patients (136 women, 31 men) participated in the study. Three hundred and thirty-four joints were evaluated in the study. According to the presence of OA, TMJs were divided into two groups as “with osteoarthritis” and “without osteoarthritis”. When any of the osteoarthritis findings were present, the joint was included in the “with osteoarthritis” group. OA findings were listed as osteophyte, erosion, flattening, sclerosis and pseudocyst. Also, TMJs were divided into two age groups: Group 1 (50-64 years old) and group 2(65-81 years old) For statistical analysis, SPSS v20 were used. Results: There was no significant difference between genders for the presence of OA (p>0.005). There were significant differences between group 1 and group 2 for erosion, flattening and sclerosis (p<0.005). There was no significant difference between group 1 and group 2 for osteophyte and pseudocyst (p>0.005). Conclusion: Radiological findings like erosion, flattening and sclerosis can be seen more common with advancing age.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• temporomandibular joint
• osteoarthritis
• geriatrics

Kaynakça

1. 1. Wang X, Zhang J, Gan Y et al.Current understanding of pathogenesis and treatment of TMJ osteoarthritis. J Dent Res. 2015;94(5):666-673. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034515574770
2. 2. Alexiou K, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K. Evaluation of the severity of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritic changes related to age using cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38(3):141-147. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/59263880
3. 3. Wiberg B, Wänman A. Signs of osteoarthrosis of the temporomandibular joints in young patients: a clinical and radiographic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998;86(2):158-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(98)90118-4
4. 4. Tsiklakis K, Syriopoulos K, Stamatakis H. Radiographic examination of the temporomandibular joint using cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33(3):196-201. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/27403192
5. 5. Brandlmaier I, Grüner S, Rudisch A et al. Validation of the clinical diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders for the diagnostic subgroup of degenerative joint disease. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30(4):401-406. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00980.x
6. 6. Carlsson GE. Epidemiology and treatment need for temporomandibular disorders. J Orofac Pain. 1999;13(4).
7. 7. Norheim Pw, Dahl Bl. Some self‐reported symptoms of temporomandibular joint dysfunction in a population in Northern Norway. J Oral Rehabil. 1978;5(1):63-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1978.tb00392.x
8. 8. Öterberg T, Carlsson GE, Wedel A et al. A cross-sectional and longitudinal study of craniomandibular dysfunction in an elderly population. J Craniomandib Disord. 1992;6(4).

9. 9. John MT, Dworkin SF, Mancl LA. Reliability of clinical temporomandibular disorder diagnoses. Pain. 2005;118(1-2):61-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2005.07.018
10. 10. Kiliç SC, Kiliç N, Sümbüllü M. Temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis: cone beam computed tomography findings, clinical features, and correlations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44(10):1268-1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.06.023
11. 11. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow L, Brooks S et al. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35(4):219-226. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/14340323
12. 12. Ogura I, Kaneda T, Mori S et al. Magnetic resonance characteristics of temporomandibular joint disc displacement in elderly patients. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;41(2):122-125. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/1286942
13. 13. Larheim T, Abrahamsson A, Kristensen M et al. Temporomandibular joint diagnostics using CBCT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014;44(1):20140235. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140235
14. 14. Widmalm SE, Westesson P-L, Kim I-K et al. Temporomandibular joint pathosis related to sex, age, and dentition in autopsy material. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1994;78(4):416-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(94)90031-0
15. 15. Ishibashi H, Takenoshita Y, Ishibashi K et al. Age-related changes in the human mandibular condyle: a morphologic, radiologic, and histologic study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;53(9):1016-1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(95)90117-5
16. 16. Yasuoka T, Nakashima M, Okuda T et al. Effect of estrogen replacement on temporomandibular joint remodeling in ovariectomized rats. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;58(2):189-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(00)90337-9