The rejection of the occlusal hypothesis cannot be justified with the present empirical evidence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Clark GT -1991-. Etiologic theory and the prevention of temporomandibular disorders. Adv Dent Res5:60–66.
2.
Clark GT, Tsukiyama Y, Baba K, Watanabe T -1999-. Sixty-eight years of experimental occlusal interference studies: what have we learned? J Prosthet Dent82:704–713.
3.
DeBoever J, Carlsson G, Klineberg I -2000-. Need for occlusal therapy and prosthodontic treatment in the management of temporomandibular disorders. Part I. Occlusal interferences and occlusal adjustment. J Oral Rehabil27:367–379.
4.
Forssell H, Kalso E, Koskela P, Vehmanen R, Puukka P, Alanen P -1999-. Occlusal treatments in temporomandibular disorders: a qualitative systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Pain83:549–560.
5.
Kirveskari P, Alanen P, Jämsä T -1992-. Association between craniomandibular disorders and occlusal interferences in children. J Prosthet Dent67:692–696.
6.
Kirveskari P, Jämsä T, Alanen P -1998-. Occlusal adjustment and the incidence of demand for temporomandibular disorder treatment. J Prosthet Dent79:433–438.
7.
Le Bell Y, Jämsä T, Korri S, Niemi P, Alanen P -2002-. The effect of artificial occlusal interferences depends on previous experience of temporomandibular disorders. Acta Odontol Scand -in press-.
8.
Rothman K, Greenland S -1998-. Modern epidemiology. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott–Raven, pp. 133-134.
9.
Tsukiyama Y, Baba K, Clark GT -2001-. An evidence-based assessment of occlusal adjustment as a treatment for temporomandibular disorders. J Prosthet Dent86:57–66.
