|
| |||
![]() |
|||
|
|
TMJ and Whiplash: Of Forces and FarcesBy Arthur Croft, DC, MS, MPH, FACO and Dennis P. Steigerwald, DC Over the last decade, chiropractic, medical, and dental providers have become increasingly aware of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders, many of which arise posttraumatically. A large share of these are the result of cervical acceleration/deceleration (CAD) injuries. It has been difficult to estimate the actual incidence of CAD (whiplash) associated TMJ disorders primarily due to the common delay in onset of symptoms, which may be as long as several months;1,2 however some estimates have been as high as 37 percent.3The head and neck are exposed to non-centroidal acceleration, which usually far exceeds the acceleration of the vehicle itself. This is a non-linear relationship and varies from 2-1/2 times at 8 mph collisions, to well over 10 times at higher speed collisions.4 Reports of injuries to cranial nerves, cerebrum, brain stem, pons, and vestibular apparatus attest to the violence of this acceleration.5 Certainly the TMJ is not isolated from injury. Schneider et al.,6 added a mandible to a previously experimentally validated head-neck model and tested it with 15 mph and 30 mph simulated, rear-impact collisions and demonstrated significant torque and acceleration forces within the TMJ. Our best current model of the mechanism of trauma to the TMJ from rear-impact collisions is as follows:
Recently, an article authored by Howard et al.,7 asserted that forces at TMJ encountered during a CAD injury were no greater than those occurring during the simple act of chewing. As evidence for this, they provided a diagram illustrating the head-neck-jaw dynamics during a rear-impact collision. In their model, no motion occurs at the head-neck junction. Furthermore, no motion occurs in the cervical spine. There are two degrees of motion (flexion and extension) occurring at a pivot point at the cervicothoracic junction. Finally, as the head-neck moves into extension, the jaw does not open. Certainly, if one considers this a reliable model, their hypothesis might have some credibility. In fact, however, there is virtually no experimental evidence to verify or support such a simplistic and biomechanically-void model, and their conclusions therefore cannot be taken seriously. Unfortunately, this article has served to further stir the already muddy waters surrounding this controversial and complex area of clinical practice. Practitioners are cautioned to be aware of both the facts and the myths surrounding the TMJ. References
Click here for more information about Arthur Croft, DC, MS, MPH, FACO.
|
|
|
|
||