Is the Anchored Disc Phenomenon a Truly Distinct Entity? A Systematic Review

A guide for temporomandibular joint surgery using a simple surgical classification - A narrative-style review

The aim of this narrative style review is to clarify the role of TMJ surgery in the management of specific TMJ disorders by introducing a simple and practical surgical classification. A decade ago, a new surgical classification was published which, like the Wilkes classification, included the five escalating degrees of joint pathology, but with more practical definitions and proposed surgical options for each of the disease categories. The classification begins with Category 1 - painful but otherwise structurally normal joints, which are largely managed nonsurgically. Categories 2 and 3 denote reducing and nonreducing disc displacement of the TMJ, respectively, with the former treated by TMJ arthrocentesis or level 1 arthroscopy and the latter best managed with disc repositioning or discopexy. Category 4 describes degenerative changes to the disc itself, where the disc cannot be salvaged and is thus removed with TMJ discectomy. Lastly, Category 5 refers to end-stage joint disease, where none of the joint components can be salvaged; both the disc and condylar head are sacrificed, and the TMJ is reconstructed with a prosthetic total joint replacement. In the decade since its publication, various studies have served to validate the usefulness of the TMJ surgical classification, and how it can be applied to better understand the role of TMJ surgery in everyday clinical practice.

Systematic review versus structured critical analysis

Objective: This analysis discusses common problems with systematic reviews (SRs) and presents a novel solution, the structured critical analysis (SCA) that can be incorporated into a SR or used as an alternative literature review design.Methods: A cross-sectional survey of current SRs related to interdisciplinary restorative dentistry was obtained by evaluating 100 current SRs for their self-reported methodological quality and its effect on scientific validity.Results: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses protocol (PRISMA) was used in 99/100 SRs, but only 8/100 reported a low risk of bias. High statistical heterogeneity precluding meta-analysis was found in 44/100 SRs. Only 94 paragraphs/100 SRs provided critical analysis.Discussion: Significant problems were found with current SRs that can compromise their reliability as the premier level of evidence for clinical science research. The reader must be aware of these deficiencies to correctly interpret the SR and cannot rely on the format alone.