Are Whiplash-Associated Disorders and Temporomandibular Disorders in a Trauma Related Cause and Effect Relationship? A Review

Background: Whiplash is associated with a wide variety of clinical manifestations, including headache, neck pain, cervical rigidity, shoulder and back pain, paresthesia, vertigo, and temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). Previous studies reported that TMDs are more common in individuals with chronic whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) than in the general population; however, the pathophysiology and mechanism of this relationship are still not well understood. Methods: A PubMed and Ovid EMBASE review was performed to identify all studies addressing the trauma related cause and effect relationship between WAD and TMDs from January 2003 to March 2023. Results: After screening for eligibility and inclusion criteria, a total of 16 articles met the selection criteria. The various included studies discussed different aspects of the association between WDA and TMDs, including changes in the coordination and amplitude of jaw opening, the severity of the associated symptoms/signs in cases of WAD, the degree of fatigue and psychological stress, difficulty in feeding, cervical and myofascial pain, changes in the MRI signal at various muscle points, muscle tenderness, and quality of life. Conclusions: In this review, we summarized the clinical evidence of any trauma related cause and effect relationship between whiplash and TMDs. An accurate screening of the previous literature showed that, in conclusion, the relationship between whiplash and TMDs is still unclear.

Accuracy of 3D digital modeling of dental arches

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to verify and compare the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions obtained using two intraoral scanners and three scanning methodologies.

METHODS

A resin model created with dental 3-D printing was scanned by a reference scanner (Zfx Evolution - Zimmer Biomet, Palm Beach Gardens, FL) in order to obtain a 3D reference; the same resin model was then scanned with two different intraoral scanners (Zfx IntraScan and Carestream 3600 - CS 3600®, Carestream, Rochester, NY, USA) using: Technique A (from tooth #27 up to tooth #17); Technique B (from tooth #11 up to tooth #17 and then from tooth #21 up to tooth #27) and Technique C (from tooth #22 up to tooth #17, and then from tooth #12 up to tooth #27 - the MeshLab software v. 1.3.3 was then used to match the two scans). The scans obtained were superimposed over the reference scan by means of a software, and the volumetric discrepancies were calculated.

RESULTS

The mean results for the Zfx Intrascan scanner were: Technique A = 302.47 ± 37.42 µm; Technique B = 180.45 ± 29.86 µm; Technique C = 147.34 ± 28.23 µm. The mean results for the Carestream 3600 scanner were: Technique A = 303.59 ± 40.20 µm; Technique B = 181.53 ± 29.61 µm; Technique C = 142.28 ± 35.33 µm. Technique C, used by both scanners, produced less volumetric discrepancies compared to the other techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

The scanning technique had a statistically significant effect on the quality of the scan (p< 0.0001), whereas the scanner did not present any significant influence (p= 0.91).