We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Journal of Craniomandibular Function



Forgotten password?


J CranioMand Func 10 (2018), No. 4     15. Nov. 2018
J CranioMand Func 10 (2018), No. 4  (15.11.2018)

Page 324-330, Language: German/English

Reliability and validity of the DC/TMD Axis I
Critical commentary 1
Okeson, Jeffrey P.
There are two main purposes for the development of diagnostic criteria: research and clinical management. The original Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD)1 provided an initial structure to assist in confirming that research studies were being carried out in similar, standardized diagnostic groups, and although these diagnostic categories were only broadly defined, they did provide some consistency for studying similar diagnostic populations. However, the original RDC/TMD did not provide any assistance in management. The newer Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD)2 attempted to refine research and clinical criteria for the study of TMD; however, because TMD symptoms are common findings in many head and neck complaints, rigid, all-inclusive criteria are difficult to establish. Drs. Steenks, Türp, and de Wijer3 should be commended for their efforts in their Focus Article, since they have more specifically addressed some of the shortcomings of the more recent DC/TMD. This Focus Article has critically evaluated the DC/TMD, commenting on the advantages and disadvantages of these suggested guidelines. Steenks et al state both their support and concerns regarding these new criteria. I comment below on some of their statements.