Fig 1.
This is the flowchart of the Study Design.
Table 1.
Socio-demographic data of patients included in the study.
Fig 2.
Evaluation by Axis I of DC/TMD.
Frequencies (%) of myofascial pain, cephalgia, and articular disorders, as evaluated by DC-TMD Axis I for the orthodontic, TMD (temporomandibular disorder), and DFD (dentofacial deformity) groups.
Fig 3.
Assessment of chronic pain in the different groups.
Evaluation of the components of CPGS (chronic pain grade scale), namely characteristic pain intensity (A) and chronic pain grade (B), for orthodontic, TMD, and DFD groups. Each column represents the mean, and the lines show the standard deviation (SD). The individual values are depicted as dot plots. **p < 0.01 DFD vs. orthodontic; ##p < 0.01 DFD vs. TMD. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multi-comparison test. DFD, dentofacial deformity; TMD, temporomandibular disorder.
Fig 4.
Analysis of jaw functional habits and limitations.
(A) Comparison of oral behaviors checklist (OBC) assessment among orthodontic, TMD, and DFD participants. **p < 0.01 DFD vs. orthodontic; #p < 0.05 DFD vs. TMD; &p < 0.05. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multi-comparison test. DFD, dentofacial deformity; TMD, temporomandibular disorder. (B) Analysis of orthodontic, TMD, and DFD groups in the different subscales of the jaw functional limitation scale-20. *p <0.05; **p < 0.01 DFD vs. orthodontic; #p < 0.05 DFD vs. TMD. Two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multi-comparison test. Each column represents the mean, and the lines show the standard deviation (SD). The individual values are depicted as dot plots. DFD, dentofacial deformity; TMD, temporomandibular disorder.
Fig 5.
Psychological parameters of DC/TMD Axis II.
Evaluation of PHQ-9 (A), GAD-7 (B), and PHQ-15 (C) in the orthodontic, TMD, and DFD groups. Each column represents the mean, and the lines show the standard deviation (SD). The individual values are depicted as dot plots. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 DFD vs. orthodontic; ##p < 0.01 DFD vs. TMD. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multi-comparison test. DFD, dentofacial deformity; TMD, temporomandibular disorder.
Fig 6.
(A) Comparison of OHIP-14 instrument totals among orthodontic, TMD, and DFD participants. **p < 0.01 DFD vs. orthodontic; ##p < 0.01 DFD vs. TMD. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multi-comparison test. DFD, dentofacial deformity; TMD, temporomandibular disorder. (B) Analysis of orthodontic, TMD, and DFD groups in the different domains of the OHIP-14 questionnaire. *p <0.05; **p < 0.01 DFD vs. orthodontic; #p < 0.05; ##p < 0.01 DFD vs. TMD. Two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multi-comparison test. Each column represents the mean, and the lines show the standard deviation (SD). The individual values are depicted as dot plots. DFD, dentofacial deformity; TMD, temporomandibular disorder.
Fig 7.
Evaluation of salivary levels of IL-1β (A), glutamate (B), and serotonin (C) in the orthodontic, TMD, and DFD groups. Each column represents the mean, and the lines show the standard deviation (SD). The individual values are depicted as dot plots. **p < 0.01 DFD vs. orthodontic. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multi-comparison test. DFD, dentofacial deformity; IL-1β, interleukin-1β; TMD, temporomandibular disorder.
Table 2.
Correlation between salivary biomarkers and DC-TMD results.