Open Access

Maximal mouth opening capacity: percentiles for healthy children 4–17 years of age

  • Lukas Müller1Email author,
  • Hubertus van Waes1,
  • Christoph Langerweger2,
  • Luciano Molinari3 and
  • Rotraud K Saurenmann4
Pediatric Rheumatology201311:17

https://doi.org/10.1186/1546-0096-11-17

Received: 15 January 2013

Accepted: 11 March 2013

Published: 22 April 2013

Abstract

Background

A reduced mouth opening capacity may be one of the first clinical signs of pathological changes in the masticatory system. The aim of this retrospective cross-sectional study was to create age related percentiles for unassisted maximal mouth opening capacity (MOC) of healthy children.

Methods

All recordings of MOC as measured at the yearly dental examinations of school children in the city of Zurich, Switzerland, between August 2009 and August 2010 were extracted from the database. The program LMSchartMaker Pro Version 2.43, Huiqi Pan and Tim Cole, Medical Research Council, 1997–2010 was used to calculate age and sex related reference centiles.

Results

Records from 22060 dental examinations were found during the study period. In 1286 (5.8%) the maximal interincisal measurement was missing. Another 55 examinations were excluded because of missing data for sex (7), age at examination (11) or because the value was deemed to be pathologically low (37). Thus, a total of 20719 measurements (10060 girls, 10659 boys) were included in the analysis. The median age (range) was 9.9 years (3.3-18.3) for girls and 10.0 years (2.8-18.7) for boys. The mean MOC (range) was 45 mm (25–69) for girls and 45 mm (25–70) for boys. Age related percentiles were created for girls and boys separately, showing the 3rd, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 97th percentile from 3 through 18 years of age.

Conclusions

In these 20719 unselected school children MOC increased with age but showed a wide range within children of the same age.

Keywords

Diagnosis Arthritis Juvenile idiopathic Arthritis Outcome research

Background

Measurement of maximal mouth opening capacity (MOC) reflects mandibular range of motion. It is a simple but important clinical parameter for follow-up and outcome assessment of diverse affections of the stomatognathic system, e.g. odontogenic infections [1], temporomandibular disorders (TMD) [2], trauma [3, 4] and tumors [5].

In children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is affected in about 50% [68], but diagnosis and treatment are often delayed because of lack of symptoms in early TMJ arthritis [7]. A reduced MOC may be one of the first clinical signs of TMJ involvement [6, 9, 10].

A limited mouth opening is part of widely accepted assessment tools for the function of the masticatory system such as the Helkimo’s Clinical Dysfunction Index [11], the Craniomandibular Index [12] and Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders [13, 14]. These tools are built for the use in adults and use a cut-off value for the definition of reduced mouth opening capacity. For children only few data about normal values of MOC exist. A single cut-off value does not seem adequate for the definition of limited MOC in growing individuals. Furthermore, most existing datasets are of limited value because they are based on too small numbers of participants or do not cover the entire age range. Despite these limitations, the existing normal values [1525] are pointing towards an influence of growth on the maximal MOC and a wide range of normalcy within a certain age category.

The aim of our study was to create age related percentiles for the maximal mouth opening capacity of healthy children and adolescents which may serve as a basis for clinical evaluation and research projects.

Subjects and methods

Subjects

As part of the local health service system, all schoolchildren (95% of European descent) in the city of Zurich, Switzerland, have to undergo mandatory yearly dental examinations which are free of charge for the families. Parents can choose to have their children examined by the school dental service or at their private dentist. During the past three years an average of 81 percent of children in the city of Zurich have attended the school dental service for these examinations.

Mouth opening capacity (MOC), i.e. the unassisted maximal interincisal distance was included as part of the routine dental examinations of school children starting from August 17th 2009 (start of the school year).

Methods

Maximal mouth opening capacity (MOC) was defined as the maximal interincisal distance on unassisted active mouth opening. The measurements were taken at the end of the annual dental examination, after the children had to open their mouths widely several times. This served as mobilizing exercise. For the measurement the children were verbally encouraged to open their mouths as far as possible. A metallic ruler with a millimetre scale was passively placed between the edges of upper and lower central incisors (Figure 1). The measurement was read and recorded to the nearest millimetre. If the central incisors were missing or the patient was not cooperative, no measurement was performed. In case of erupting central incisors the pair with the smaller interincisal distance was chosen. In order to make the measurement simple and quick for daily practice, positive overbite values were not taken into account. Negative overbite values (an open space between the incisors in closed mouth position) were measured perpendicularly to the occlusal plane and subtracted from the measured interincisal distance. The measurements were entered into the school dental services database.
Figure 1

Measuring the maximal mouth opening capacity. Measuring the maximal mouth opening capacity with a metallic calliper (millimetre scale) between the incisal edges of upper and lower central incisors.

Reliability measurements

As part of the quality assessment at the public school dental services 41 children were measured repeatedly: the first time at the end of the routine examination as usual (CL1); a second measurement was obtained approximately 30 minutes after the first measurement by the same dentist (CL2). The same group was then measured a third time by a different dentist (LM) approximately 10 minutes later on the same day in a different room. The involved dentists did not have any contact with each other or with each other’s results and both were blinded for the previous measurements.

On July 9th 2010 (end of the school year) the following data were extracted from the database: maximal interincisal distance, age at examination and sex. The data were extracted in an anonymous way in conformity with the rules of our institutional review board.

Statistics

The data were analysed using the program LMSchartMaker Pro Version 2.43, Huiqi Pan and Tim Cole, Medical Research Council, 1997–2010 [26].

Descriptive statistics for the clinical measurements and for the differences between the repeated measurements were performed using the JMP 9 software from the SAS Institute Inc, Cary NC, USA. To validate the performed measurements, the differences between the repeated measurements were plotted against their average by Intra-class correlation (ICC) as recommended by Bland and Altman [27]. Mean differences, standard errors, intra-and inter-observer correlations were calculated.

Results

A total of 32 dentists were involved in the acquisition of the data. Records from 22′060 dental examinations were found during the study period.

In 1286 (5.8%) records the measurement of MOC was missing because of missing central incisors or lack of cooperation. Another 18 examinations were excluded because of missing data for gender (7) or age at examination (11). Based on the scatterplot of all measurements (Figure 2) extreme outliers were defined as values less than 25 mm in 3–9 year-old children and less than 30 mm in children older than 10 years. Thus another 37 examinations were eliminated from the evaluation. Finally, a total of 20′719 measurements (10′060 girls, 10′659 boys) were included in the analysis. The number of individuals in every age group for boys and girls are displayed in Table 1.
Figure 2

Scatterplot of all 22′060 measurements with outlayers. Extreme outliers (below dotted line) were defined as values less than 25 mm in 3–9 year-old children and less than 30 mm in children older than 10 years.

Table 1

Number of individuals in every age group for boys and girls with MOC values (mm): mean, 10th and 90th percentile

Age

2y

3y

4y

5y

6y

7y

8y

9y

10y

11y

12y

13y

14y

15y

16y

17y

18y

Total

n: male

1

2

166

1249

1146

1159

687

889

967

895

894

848

852

685

198

19

2

10659

mean MOC (mm)

-

-

40.1

40.7

42.2

43.6

44.4

45.5

46.1

47.3

48.5

49.2

51.2

51.6

52.0

51.2

-

45

10th Percentile

  

35

35

36

37

38

39

40

40

41

42

43

43

43

42

-

25-70

90th Percentile

  

46

46

48

50

51

52

53

55

56

57

60

60

61

60

  

n: female

0

2

200

1285

1024

1130

610

810

915

901

811

784

800

648

127

12

1

10060

mean MOC (mm)

-

-

40.4

40.7

41.8

43.2

44.0

45.3

46.2

47.6

48.1

48.9

48.8

49.4

49.0

47.4

-

45

10th Percentile

  

35

35

36

37

38

39

40

40

41

42

42

42

41

36

-

25-69

90th Percentile

  

45

46

48

49

51

52

53

55

55

56

56

56

58

58

  

The median age (range) was 9.9 years (3.3-18.3) for girls and 10.0 years (2.8-18.7) for boys. The mean MOC (range) was 45 mm (25–69) for girls and 45 mm (25–70) for boys. Up to the age of 13 years the mean MOC values for the individual age groups were not significantly different for girls and boys. For the age groups of 14 to 17 years increasingly higher mean MOC values were measured for boys in comparison to girls: 2.2 mm to 3.8 mm (Table 1).

The dataset was entered into the LMS program for the creation of age related percentiles. Best results were achieved using the following settings: L = 1, i.e. L constant, set to L = 0.65 by the program, M = 5, S = 2 for girls, and L = 1, set to 0.5 by the program, M = 7, S = 2 for boys. Age related percentiles for MOC in boys and girls are given in Figure 3 and 4.
Figure 3

Age related percentiles for boys. Percentiles of maximal mouth opening capacity for boys showing the 3rd, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 97th percentile from 3 through 18 years of age.

Figure 4

Age related percentiles for girls. Percentiles of maximal mouth opening capacity for girls showing the 3rd, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 97th percentile from 3 through 18 years of age.

Reliability measurements

The group of 41 children (mean age 8.7, range 5.2-17.4) with repeated measurements contained 23 girls. The mean values measured increased from CL1 (mean 45.9 mm) to CL2 (mean 46.7 mm) and further increased to LM (mean 47.3 mm). The mean absolute difference between CL1 and CL2 was 1.6 mm (median 2 mm, range 0-5 mm, SD 1.3 mm), between CL1 and LM 1.6 mm (median 1 mm, range 0-6 mm, SD 1.2 mm) and between CL2 and LM 1.4 mm (median 1 mm, range 0-6 mm, SD 1.4 mm).

Intra-observer reliability

Paired comparison of the 2 measurements of observer 1 resulted in a mean difference of 0.8 mm (p-value: 0.013) with a standard error (SE) of 0.30 and a correlation of 0.97.

Inter-observer reliability

Paired comparison of the first measurement of observer 1 with the measurement of observer 2 resulted in a mean difference of 1.4 mm (p-value < 0.0001; SE 0.24) and a correlation of 0.98, whereas the comparison of the second measurement of observer 1 with the measurement of observer 2 resulted in a mean difference of 0.6 mm (p-value: 0.0504; SE 0.30) and a correlation of 0.97.

Discussion

To our knowledge this data sample of 20′719 unselected school children is the largest sample reported so far and covers the entire age range where unassisted mouth opening can be measured [1523]. We believe that these percentiles will therefore be of great importance for future studies as well as clinical assessment of children with affections of the masticatory system.

MOC increased smoothly with age but showed a wide range within children of the same age group. As far as results can be compared, this is in line with other studies [1518, 22, 23]. Landtwing [15] recorded MOC in a group of 976 individuals (age range 5–19 years) and observed a slight increase of the median value from 43 mm to 55 mm for 5 and 18 year olds, respectively. In every age group he found a considerable range of MOC starting with 34 mm to 55 mm for 5 year old children and ending with 36 mm to 65 mm for 18 year old adults. The same characteristic of a small but significant increase of MOC with age accompanied by large ranges in every age group was observed by Hirsch et al. [16] who assessed a sample of 1011 children (age range of 10–17 years). The slight increase of MOC with age in children and adolescents is partly explained by mandibular growth. Growth results in increasing mandibular length which geometrically influences the linear interincisal measurements [17, 2830]. This is supported by the observation of Landtwing [15]: in his sample MOC had a better correlation with stature height (0.69) than with chronological age (0.66) of the children.

Having the effect of mandibular length in mind, the wide range of MOC within every age group can be explained not only by inter-individual TMJ mobility but also by differences in craniofacial morphology and skeletal age [31]. That’s why Dijkstra et al. [32] recommend using linear measurements of MOC longitudinally within the same subject over time. This way, the bias caused by inter-individual differences of mandibular morphology can be overcome.

Because of the wide inter-individual range, we cannot recommend to use a certain cut-off value for the assessment of MOC in children with potential affection of the masticatory system. Also, we do not believe that these percentiles will be able to solve the dilemma of interpretation of a single MOC measurement. However, we hope that they will become an important tool for the longitudinal follow-up of children with a high risk for TMJ affections, e.g. children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. To our knowledge, our results make it possible for the first time to take into account the influence of chronological age when judging MOC from early childhood to late adolescence.

For the age group up to 13 years the percentiles for MOC didn’t differ between boys and girls. In accordance with girls reaching puberty earlier, a slight flattening of the percentiles can be observed after the age of 12 years (Figure 4). The annual increase in MOC of males declines later after the age of 14 to 15 years and ends up with slightly higher MOC values for all percentiles (Figure 3). This can be explained by the male “growth spurt” which starts later, results in higher growth rates and lasts longer. In addition the setting of parameter M = 7 (M = 5 for females) in the LMS program also has influenced the percentile curves for males to look more bumpy. Our observation is in line with the observation of List et al. [23] who examined a sample of 862 children with an age-range from 12 to 18 years. Several other studies reported higher values for MOC in males [15, 16, 22, 33, 34]. Hirsch et al. [16] observed a significant difference of 1.9 mm with larger opening in male subjects (age group 10-17 years). Although statistically significant, it has to be questioned whether these differences are clinically relevant.

When we performed the MOC examination repeatedly, the mean values increased significantly from first to second and second to third measurements. This is in line with a study in adults by Hesse et al. [35] who found it necessary to open the mouth maximally more than four times in females and three times in males before levelling off to a consistent maximum value was observed. The differences between the measurements of CL1, CL2 and LM are therefore rather a display of a mobilizing effect on the TMJ than presenting solely intra- or inter-observer variability. The measurements in our study were carried out only once. A “warm-up” procedure to mobilize the TMJ by performing MOC three times and taking the highest value would have increased the measured MOC and the reliability of the results [35, 36]. But as the MOC was the last parameter examined, the children got at least some “warm-up”-exercises by opening widely during the dental examination.

Our study is limited by the fact that the Zurich population is 95% Caucasian. Ethnicity was not recorded in our sample and we can therefore not entirely exclude the possibility that ethnicities were represented slightly differently in our sample than in the overall Zurich population. Nevertheless our data reflect findings of a predominant Caucasian population. Also, only 81% of school children attend the school dental services. Although we do not have any reasons to believe that the remaining 19% were entirely different in body dimensions, we cannot completely exclude a possible bias. Another limitation is the fact that the measurements were carried out in different places of the public school dental services of Zurich. A total of 32 dentists were involved in the acquisition of the data. The inter-observer reliability was tested only for two different observers (both co-authors of this study). This fact may have minimized a possible difference between the measurements. The inter-observer reliability was acceptable and comparable with the reliability observed by List et al. [23].

One may also consider the fact that we did not correct for overbite a limitation of this study. However, admitting to this concern one should consequently not only consider overbite but also overjet as factors influencing MOC. It is evident that both a large overbite and a large overjet will geometrically increase the interincisal distance measured during unassisted MOC. Taking these considerations into account, we believe that such a complicated assessment would no longer fulfil the requirement of an easy and quick tool for everyday use.

Due to the retrospective character of the study no systematic questionnaire or clinical TMJ-examination were performed to exclude individuals with TMD. Controversial results are found in the literature to whether the influence of TMD on MOC is negligible or not [23, 24, 37, 38]. Diagnoses with limitation of jaw motion according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (i.e. muscle pain with limited opening, disc displacement without reduction with limited opening) are rare in this age group [22, 23, 33, 34]. Therefore it can be assumed that these conditions do not significantly influence population “normal values” of jaw motion.

Conclusion

MOC increases with age but shows a wide range within children of the same age.

That’s why we recommend individual follow up of MOC according to the published percentiles in children with a high risk for TMJ affections, e.g. children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. To achieve the optimal maximal MOC values, a warm-up procedure has to be included into the measurement process.

Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient's parent for publication of any accompanying images.

Abbreviations

MOC: 

Maximal mouth opening capacity

TMD: 

Temporomandibular disorders

JIA: 

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis

TMJ: 

Temporomandibular joint

LMS: 

L: λ (the power in the Box-Cox transformation for “correcting” the skewness)

M: 

μ (median)

S: 

σ (a coefficient of variation)

PC: 

Percentile

SE: 

Standard error.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank the team of the school dental service of Zurich for their help in providing the data for this retrospective study.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department for Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Zurich
(2)
Public School Dental Services in the City of Zurich
(3)
Department of Growth and Development, Children’s Hospital, University of Zurich
(4)
Department for Pediatric Rheumatology, Children’s Hospital, University of Zurich

References

  1. Al-Nawas B, Walter C, Morbach T, Seitner N, Siegel E, Maeurer M, Krummenauer F: Clinical and microbiological efficacy of moxifloxacin versus amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in severe odontogenic abscesses: a pilot study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2009, 28: 75-82. 10.1007/s10096-008-0587-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Stegenga B, de Bont LG, Dijkstra PU, Boering G: Short-term outcome of arthroscopic surgery of temporomandibular joint osteoarthrosis and internal derangement: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993, 31: 3-14. 10.1016/0266-4356(93)90089-F.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen CT, Feng CH, Tsay PK, Lai JP, Chen YR: Functional outcomes following surgical treatment of bilateral mandibular condylar fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011, 40: 38-44. 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.09.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Singh V, Bhagol A, Goel M, Kumar I, Verma A: Outcomes of open versus closed treatment of mandibular subcondylar fractures: a prospective randomized study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010, 68: 1304-1309. 10.1016/j.joms.2010.01.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Acosta-Feria M, Villar-Puchades R, Haro-Luna JJ, Ramos-Medina B, Garcia-Solano E: Limitation of mouth opening caused by osteochondroma of the coronoid process. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011, 112: e64-e68. 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.05.020.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Muller L, Kellenberger CJ, Cannizzaro E, Ettlin D, Schraner T, Bolt IB, Peltomaki T, Saurenmann RK: Early diagnosis of temporomandibular joint involvement in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a pilot study comparing clinical examination and ultrasound to magnetic resonance imaging. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2009, 48: 680-685. 10.1093/rheumatology/kep068.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Twilt M, Mobers SM, Arends LR, ten Cate R, van Suijlekom-Smit L: Temporomandibular involvement in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2004, 31: 1418-1422.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Stoll ML, Sharpe T, Beukelman T, Good J, Young D, Cron RQ: Risk factors for temporomandibular joint arthritis in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2012, 39: 1880-1887. 10.3899/jrheum.111441.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Pedersen TK, Kuseler A, Gelineck J, Herlin T: A prospective study of magnetic resonance and radiographic imaging in relation to symptoms and clinical findings of the temporomandibular joint in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2008, 35: 1668-1675.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Karhulahti T, Ronning O, Jamsa T: Mandibular condyle lesions, jaw movements, and occlusal status in 15-year-old children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Dent Res. 1990, 98: 17-26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Helkimo M: Studies on function and dysfunction of the masticatory system. 3. Analyses of anamnestic and clinical recordings of dysfunction with the aid of indices. Sven Tandlak Tidskr. 1974, 67: 165-181.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fricton JR, Schiffman EL: Reliability of a craniomandibular index. J Dent Res. 1986, 65: 1359-1364. 10.1177/00220345860650111701.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dworkin SF, LeResche L: Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders: review, criteria, examinations and specifications, critique. J Craniomandib Disord. 1992, 6: 301-355.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Schiffman EL, Ohrbach R, Truelove EL, Tai F, Anderson GC, Pan W, Gonzalez YM, John MT, Sommers E, List T, Velly AM, Kang W, Look JO: The research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders. V: methods used to establish and validate revised axis I diagnostic algorithms. J Orofac Pain. 2010, 24: 63-78.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Landtwing K: Evaluation of the normal range of vertical mandibular opening in children and adolescents with special reference to age and stature. J Maxillofac Surg. 1978, 6: 157-162.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hirsch C, John MT, Lautenschlager C, List T: Mandibular jaw movement capacity in 10-17-yr-old children and adolescents: normative values and the influence of gender, age, and temporomandibular disorders. Eur J Oral Sci. 2006, 114: 465-470. 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2006.00402.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ingervall B: Range of movement of mandible in children. Scand J Dent Res. 1970, 78: 311-322.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Sheppard IM, Sheppard SM: Maximal incisal opening–a diagnostic index?. J Dent Med. 1965, 20: 13-15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Agerberg G: Maximal mandibular movements in teen-agers. Acta Morphol Neerl Scand. 1974, 12: 79-102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Agerberg G: Maximal mandibular movements in young men and women. Sven Tandlak Tidskr. 1974, 67: 81-100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Agerberg G: Maximal mandibular movements in children. Acta Odontol Scand. 1974, 32: 147-159. 10.3109/00016357409002543.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ogura T, Morinushi T, Ohno H, Sumi K, Hatada K: An epidemiological study of TMJ dysfunction syndrome in adolescents. J Pedod. 1985, 10: 22-35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. List T, Wahlund K, Wenneberg B, Dworkin SF: TMD in children and adolescents: prevalence of pain, gender differences, and perceived treatment need. J Orofac Pain. 1999, 13: 9-20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Vanderas AP: Mandibular movements and their relationship to age and body height in children with or without clinical signs of craniomandibular dysfunction: Part IV. A comparative study. ASDC J Dent Child. 1992, 59: 338-341.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Woolston SL, Beukelman T, Sherry DD: Back mobility and interincisor distance ranges in racially diverse North American healthy children and relationship to generalized hypermobility. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2012, 10: 17-10.1186/1546-0096-10-17.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Harlow Healthcare for Children.http://www.healthforallchildren.com/index.php/shop/category-list/Software,
  27. Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986, 1: 307-310.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Wright V, Hopkins R: The temporo-mandibular joint. Clin Rheum Dis. 1982, 8: 715-722.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Rothenberg LH: An analysis of maximum mandibular movements, craniofacial relationships and temporomandibular joint awareness in children. Angle Orthod. 1991, 61: 103-112.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Westling L, Helkimo E: Maximum jaw opening capacity in adolescents in relation to general joint mobility. J Oral Rehabil. 1992, 19: 485-494. 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1992.tb01112.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Dijkstra PU, Hof AL, Stegenga B, de Bont LG: Influence of mandibular length on mouth opening. J Oral Rehabil. 1999, 26: 117-122. 10.1046/j.1365-2842.1999.00358.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Dijkstra PU, de Bont LG, Stegenga B, Boering G: Temporomandibular joint mobility assessment: a comparison between four methods. J Oral Rehabil. 1995, 22: 439-444. 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1995.tb00798.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Nilner M: Prevalence of functional disturbances and diseases of the stomatognathic system in 15–18 year olds. Swed Dent J. 1981, 5: 189-197.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Nilner M, Lassing SA: Prevalence of functional disturbances and diseases of the stomatognathic system in 7–14 year olds. Swed Dent J. 1981, 5: 173-187.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Hesse JR, Naeije M, Hansson TL: Craniomandibular stiffness toward maximum mouth opening in healthy subjects: a clinical and experimental investigation. J Craniomandib Disord. 1990, 4: 257-266.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kropmans T, Dijkstra P, Stegenga B, Stewart R, de Bont L: Smallest detectable difference of maximal mouth opening in patients with painfully restricted temporomandibular joint function. Eur J Oral Sci. 2000, 108: 9-13. 10.1034/j.1600-0722.2000.00747.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Szentpetery A: Clinical utility of mandibular movement ranges. J Orofac Pain. 1993, 7: 163-168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Dworkin SF, Huggins KH, LeResche L, Von Korff M, Howard J, Truelove E, Sommers E: Epidemiology of signs and symptoms in temporomandibular disorders: clinical signs in cases and controls. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990, 120: 273-281.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Müller et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement