Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Oral Rehabil. 2017 Dec 7;45(2):97–103. doi: 10.1111/joor.12588

Table 1.

Overview of Methods (modified from Iwasaki et al. 201719)

Activity [Location] Purpose Application
Clinical Visit #1 [UB] Sept. 2006–June 2008 (pilot phase) and Nov. 2011–Feb. 2014 approximately 161 subjects were screened; 34 met study criteria and completed the protocols Subject recruitment and enrollment
Acquire:

  • Informed consent

  • Dental impressions

  • DC/TMD examination results, completed forms

  • Head computed tomography (Galileos Comfort, Dentsply Sirona, York PA)

  • Protection of subject’s rights

  • Inclusion and exclusion criteria

  • Oral appliances constructed for use in dynamic stereometry

  • 3D craniomandibular anatomy for numerical modeling to determine for each subject’s TMJ loads (Fnormal)

    • Expressed as % of applied 20 N canine bite-force

    • Used for energy density calculations
Imaging visit #1 [PIC] Nov. 2007–Nov. 2011 (pilot phase) and Jan. 2012–Feb. 2014 Acquire bilateral MRI of TMJs (Echelon 1.5T, Hitachi America Ltd., Tarrytown NY)

  • Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Imaging visit #2 [PIC] Dec. 2007–Jan. 2012 (pilot phase) and Feb. 2012–June 2014 Acquire bilateral MRI of TMJs and reference system (with surface coils)

  • 3D TMJ anatomy for dynamic stereometry
Clinical Visit #2 [UB] Nov. 2007–Nov. 2011 (pilot phase) and Dec. 2011–May 2014 Record:

  • Jaw-tracking

  • with reference system

    • during static and dynamic jaw tasks

  • Dynamic stereometry: Combine jaw-tracking and MRI data to determine:

    • Eminence shapes for numerical modeling of Fnormal

    • Component variables: x, ΔD, V, Q for energy density calculations
Data Analysis [UB, UMKC, UZ] 34 subjects completed study protocols; data analysis was on-going as collection was completed for each subject Analyses of variance, Tukey honest significant difference post hoc tests
Independent Variables

  • Movement (symmetrical closing, lateral adduction)

  • Sex (females, males)

Dependent Variables

  • Energy densities in contralateral TMJs

    • Component variables: x, ΔD, V, Q

3D, three-dimensional; ΔD, distance of stress-field translation (mm); DC/TMD, diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders; MRI, magnetic resonance images; PIC, private imaging center (WNY MRI, Buffalo, NY); Q, cartilage volume (mm3); TMJ, temporomandibular joint; UB, University at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine; UMKC, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Dentistry; UZ, University of Zurich School of Dental Medicine; V, velocity of stress-field translation (mm/s); x, aspect ratio=radius of the stress-field/instantaneous TMJ disc thickness.