Table 1.
Maneuvers used for somatic testing in our study.
Fig 1.
Study workflow for the present study.
A total of 226 patients with clinically normal hearing and chronic tinnitus were enrolled in the study and underwent audiological and somatic evaluation. Patients were divided into a study group (n = 134) and a control group (n = 92) based on self-reported history of temporomandibular (TMJ) dysfunction and positive somatic modulation of tinnitus following somatic maneuvers in the TMJ region. Afterwards, all patients underwent gnathological evaluation to assess the presence of clinically diagnosed TMJ disorders according to Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) Axis I. PTA: Pure Tone Audiometry; IT: Immittance Test; THI: Tinnitus Handicap Inventory; HHI: Hearing Handicap Inventory; HQ: Hyperacusis Questionnaire; GUF: Geräuschüberempfindlichkeit Questionnaire.
Table 2.
Demographic and audiological characteristics of patients in the study and control groups.
Fig 2.
Diagnosis of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders.
Diagnosis of TMJ disorders according to Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) Axis I in patients in the study and control groups. A significantly higher number of TMJ disorders was found in patients in the study group compared to the control group (p<0.0001).
Table 3.
Characteristics of patients in the study and control groups with and without temporomandibular joint disorders.
Fig 3.
Relative proportions for gender and tinnitus laterality within groups.
Comparison of relative proportion of (A) gender and (B) tinnitus laterality in dependence from a diagnosis of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorder in the study and control groups.
Table 4.
Logistic regression analysis in the study group.
Fig 4.
Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders classification according to Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) Axis I.
(A) Distribution of items: most patients had joint disorders (67.2%), followed by other (29.8%) and pain disorders (29%). (B) Number of items per patient: most patients (81.6%) had only one clinical examination item; two or three concomitant items were found in 18.4% of patients. No significant differences were found between patients in the study and control groups.