Implant Forces and TMJ Consequences

Reconsidering Occlusion Beyond the Implant Crown

November 13, 2026 · @Agatha Bis

Introduction

Why does an implant that is perfectly integrated keep failing at the crown level?

Implant dentistry is predictable when success is defined by osseointegration, implant survival, prosthetic fit, and peri-implant health. A posterior implant crown can integrate, seat precisely, look healthy on the radiograph, and satisfy every conventional rule of implant occlusion. Then the screw loosens. The ceramic chips. The patient reports that the bite feels different. Muscle or joint symptoms appear after loading.

Conventional implant occlusion minimizes force magnitude and directs load as axially as possible. It recommends reduced cusp inclines, narrower occlusal tables, centralized contacts, short cantilevers, light contact intensity, and control of excursive load [1–3]. These principles are sound. They are usually applied after the mandibular closing position has already been accepted. The crown is adjusted to the position in which the patient closes. The position itself is rarely examined: is it stable, reproducible, comfortable, or changing?

That question matters more for an implant than for a tooth. An implant has no periodontal ligament. It cannot sense load the way a tooth does, and it cannot move to accommodate it [3–7]. An implant restoration placed in an unstable mandibular position will not signal overload the way the natural dentition does. It will carry that load until something fails.

This article does not argue that implants cause TMJ disorders. It argues that an implant restoration is a stop, and stops set where the mandible closes and where the condyle seats. The question is broader than whether the crown is high. It is whether the implant is functioning within a stable masticatory system.

1. Natural Teeth and Implants Receive Force Differently

The periodontal ligament is a sensory organ as well as an attachment. Its mechanoreceptors encode which tooth is loaded, how hard, and in which direction. This feedback controls bite force during mastication and allows rapid reduction of closing force when an unexpected contact is met [4].

An osseointegrated implant has no periodontal ligament. Some tactile function returns through osseoperception, which draws on periosteal, mucosal, muscular, and joint receptors [5,6]. It does not match the tooth. A systematic review of 14 psychophysical studies found active tactile thresholds about 5 times higher and passive thresholds about 50 times higher for implants than for natural teeth [5]. Earlier experimental work showed the same pattern [6,7].

A natural tooth that meets a premature contact triggers a neuromuscular response that reduces force. An implant crown gives a weaker signal. It can be loaded repeatedly without the early warning a tooth provides.

The implant is also rigid. A tooth moves within its ligament under load; an implant transfers load directly to bone through a nearly immobile interface [1,3]. A tooth wears, drifts, and erupts as the dentition changes. An implant stays where it was placed.

Table 1. Natural teeth and osseointegrated implants

Implant restorations survive well. The point is that the structure receiving the load is different. A contact that is acceptable on a natural tooth cannot be assumed to behave the same on an implant [1,3].

2. Implant Occlusion: What the Conventional Principles Address

Implant-protected occlusion grew from the recognition that excessive or misdirected load stresses the implant, the components, and the surrounding bone [2]. Misch and Bidez identified force direction, implant position, surface area, cantilevers, occlusal table width, and contact design as the determinants of that mechanical environment [2]. Kim and colleagues summarized the guidelines still used today: minimize cantilevers, eliminate premature contacts, narrow the occlusal table where indicated, flatten cusp inclines, and favour axial loading [1]. Kim and colleagues also noted that no single implant-specific occlusal scheme has been proven superior in comparative trials [1]. Klineberg, Trulsson, and Murray added that the loss of periodontal feedback changes motor control after rehabilitation, so tooth-based occlusion cannot simply be transferred to implants [3].

Table 2. Conventional implant-occlusion principles

These principles answer one question: how should force be delivered to the implant? They do not answer a second question: why is the mandible delivering force in that direction, and is the position it closes into stable?

Force direction matters as much as force magnitude

Force is a vector. Axial load is better tolerated than lateral or oblique load, which increases bending moments and concentrates stress in the crown, abutment, screw, fixture, and crestal bone [1,2].

Consider a patient who contacts an implant crown first and then slides into maximum intercuspation. The articulating paper shows an acceptable final contact. During the slide, the crown was loaded laterally. Reducing the final mark does not address the problem, because the problem is in the path to the contact, not the mark at the end of it.

I have treated a patient whose posterior implant crown loosened repeatedly. Component fit and torque were correct. The arches met at an angle that loaded the crown off its axis on every closure, and the dental midlines did not coincide. The midline itself did not loosen the screw. It was the visible sign that the mandible was closing along a path that loaded the implant laterally. When an implant keeps failing, examine the entire closing and excursive pathway, not the static contact alone.

3. Hardware Failure Is Data

Implant-supported prostheses are highly successful, and technical complications are still common. Goodacre and colleagues documented screw loosening, screw fracture, prosthesis fracture, loss of retention, and veneering-material failure across implant restorations [12]. Pjetursson and colleagues reported high implant survival together with frequent veneer fracture, screw and abutment loosening, and loss of retention [13,14].

Survival and mechanical success are different outcomes. An implant can remain fully integrated while its prosthesis repeatedly shows that the load is wrong. A loose screw is not implant failure. Repeated loosening after component fit, preload, torque protocol, and prosthetic design have been verified is not a maintenance nuisance either.

The causes of repeated loosening include inadequate preload, component mismatch, connection design, misfit, cantilevers, material fatigue, and parafunctional or off-axis load [1,12–14]. Rule out the component causes first. Then examine the function. When the same component fails again, the question changes from “How do I tighten this?” to “Why is the system loading this component beyond its stability?”

Bruxism changes the mechanical risk

In 2014, Manfredini, Poggio, and Lobbezoo found that bruxism was unlikely to be a risk factor for biological complications around implants, while four of seven studies linked it to mechanical complications [9]. The evidence has strengthened since. Chrcanovic and colleagues compared 98 bruxers with a matched group of non-bruxers. Bruxers had more mechanical complications and an odds ratio of 2.71 for implant failure [10]. A 2025 meta-analysis by Vidal and colleagues pooled 20 studies comparing mechanical failures in bruxers and non-bruxers and associated bruxism with specific prosthetic complications [11]. Most included studies were retrospective, and most diagnosed bruxism as probable, from self-report and clinical examination; only one used EMG.

Thirteen of the 20 studies had data suitable for pooling. Bruxism was associated with a higher risk of every mechanical complication analyzed [11].

Table 3. Pooled odds ratios for mechanical complications in bruxers (Vidal et al., 2025 [11])

Implant fracture and ceramic fracture carry the strongest evidence. The authors concluded that bruxers who need implants require protective measures, specifically occlusal splints and avoiding the use of implants as guiding teeth in the occlusion [11]. These ratios do not predict the outcome for one patient, and the included studies were observational. They establish bruxism as a mechanical risk to be identified before the implant is restored.

Table 3b. Bruxism and implant mechanical complications in individual studies (as reported by Vidal et al., 2025 [11])

Not every study found an association. Coltro 2018, the only included study that confirmed bruxism with EMG, found no significant association with mechanical complications of metal-acrylic full-arch prostheses; framework design was the significant factor. De Angelis 2021 found no effect of bruxism on

technical complications of monolithic zirconia bridges [11]. The very wide confidence intervals in the largest effects reflect small numbers of bruxers.

4. The Natural Dentition Is a Mechanical History

Before an implant is restored, the remaining teeth show how this patient has loaded them. Look for attrition, ceramic and cusp fractures, mobility, fremitus, asymmetric wear, and restorations that have failed more than once. Wear has several contributors, including erosion, diet, and materials, and no single finding proves overload. Several converging signs of high mechanical demand describe the environment the implant is about to enter.

The implant then becomes a rigid element in a changing arch. The teeth around it continue to wear, erupt, migrate, and be restored. The implant stays where it was placed [3,4]. The occlusion delivered on the day of insertion is not the occlusion that will exist five or ten years later. That is why maintenance must include occlusal review, not only probing and radiographs.

Overload and peri-implant bone loss

Fu, Hsu, and Wang reported an association between occlusal overload and marginal bone loss and stressed the importance of identifying and controlling it [16]. Chang, Chronopoulos, and Mattheos found that evidence for overload as an independent cause of bone loss around integrated implants remains limited and conflicting [17]. Load may aggravate breakdown when inflammation is present. Current evidence has not established overload as an independent cause of peri-implantitis, but it has not excluded it either.

Keep two diagnostic pathways. Biological complications call for evaluation of plaque, inflammation, soft tissue, bone levels, implant position, and cleansability. Mechanical complications call for evaluation of force, prosthetic design, connection stability, parafunction, and the closing position. The two can coexist. Neither should be assumed to explain the other.

5. The Implant Is a Stop

The teeth are the stops that set where the mandible closes. Where the mandible closes sets where the condyle seats. An implant crown is a stop. It is a stop that cannot move, cannot wear like enamel, and cannot report overload the way a tooth does.

Occlusion-dictated condylar position has been measured. In Crawford’s study, condylar axis position as determined by the occlusion correlated strongly with signs and symptoms of TMJ dysfunction [26]. When the stops change, the condylar position changes. The relationship also works in the corrective direction. In a prospective study of 78 patients, replacement of lost teeth with implant-supported fixed prostheses reduced subjective TMJ symptoms at 3 years, with significant improvement in joint sounds and pain on wide opening [37]. Restoring stops correctly improved joint function.

Single implant versus reconstruction

For a single posterior implant in a stable dentition, the surrounding teeth determine intercuspation and the implant is adjusted within that environment. As the reconstruction grows, the implants define the position. Multiple adjacent implants, anterior implant bridges, extensive posterior rehabilitation, and

complete-arch prostheses determine vertical dimension, overbite, overjet, anterior guidance, posterior stops, the occlusal plane, and the position into which the patient closes thousands of times a day. Accepting an unstable or retruded closing position in these cases builds that position into titanium and ceramic.

First contact and final intercuspation

Many patients contact first and then slide into maximum intercuspation. A slide alone does not diagnose a TMJ disorder [30,34]. It still matters restoratively. If an implant crown sits in the path of that slide, it is loaded laterally on every closure. If the implant is a key posterior stop or carries anterior guidance, it will receive that lateral load without the sensory feedback a tooth would provide [1,3–5]. Observe the slide: its size, its direction, which teeth or implants it crosses, and its reproducibility.

The midline as a screening sign

A dental midline discrepancy can reflect dental or skeletal asymmetry, tooth loss, crossbite, or orthodontic history. It can also reflect a mandible that shifts to one side on closure. Treat it as a reason to examine closure, not as a diagnosis. Watch the opening and closing path, look for a first contact followed by a lateral shift, check how the midline changes after deprogramming, and compare it with asymmetric wear and recurring prosthetic complications.

From retruded closure to the joint

When implant stops are built in a retruded closing position, the sequence I teach applies:

mandibular retrusion → condylar distalization → retrodiscal compression → disc displacement

Imaging studies associate a posteriorly positioned condyle with internal derangement. On MRI, condyles in joints with anterior disc displacement sat significantly more posteriorly than in normal joints, with posterior displacement 2.4 times greater than superior displacement [21]. Posterior condylar position was the main feature of joints with slight and moderate anterior disc displacement [22]. Distal condyles were more prevalent in symptomatic patients with disc displacement than in asymptomatic volunteers [23]. Posteriorly seated condyles were found in patients with severe TMJ dysfunction [24], and in Class II dentofacial deformity alongside a higher rate of internal derangement [25].

The retrodiscal tissue behind the condyle is vascular and richly innervated [28]. In patients with disc displacement, increased T2 signal in the posterior attachment is significantly associated with joint pain [27]. The joint responds biologically to the direction and magnitude of load [35].

Condylar position is a finding, not a diagnosis. A distal condyle alone identifies disc displacement with modest sensitivity [23]. Population studies show weak associations between individual occlusal features and TMJ disorders [34]. Disc displacement with reduction is common and is often stable and painless [31]. These findings describe populations. They do not describe the individual patient whose closure, joint sounds, opening path, and implant complications have been examined.

Joint symptoms after implant treatment

A scoping review found limited and heterogeneous evidence on implant therapy and TMJ disorders; long surgical procedures may increase risk in susceptible patients, and implant rehabilitation improves

function in others [19]. In a clinical series of 19 patients who developed TMJ symptoms during or after implant treatment, 13 had masticatory muscle pain and 13 had joint pain [20]. Implant treatment does not cause TMJ disorders as a rule. In a joint that is already compensating, a new set of rigid stops built in the wrong position can be the change that ends the compensation.

6. Screen the Joint Before the Implant Is Restored

Document before treatment and compare after treatment. Without a baseline, there is no way to know whether a click, a midline shift, limited opening, or a slide is new or was always there.

The examination scales with the case. A stable patient receiving a single molar implant needs a focused screen. A patient receiving an anterior implant bridge, multiple posterior implants, or a complete-arch prosthesis needs full documentation. The DC/TMD provides validated criteria for the clinical examination [30].

Table 4. Functional screen before implant restoration

After loading

New preauricular pain, increasing muscle fatigue, restricted opening, a new deviation or deflection, intermittent locking, or a persistent change in the bite after a major restoration is not something the patient should be told to adapt to. Each finding requires a differential diagnosis: masseter pain may be myalgia, parafunction, or postoperative guarding; a click may be disc displacement with reduction that predated treatment [31]. Each finding also requires the question this article is built on: did the new stops change where the condyle seats?

CBCT and MRI answer different questions

CBCT is already available in most implant cases, and it is tempting to read the joint from it. CBCT shows bone: condylar morphology, flattening, erosion, osteophytes, sclerosis, fracture, and the position of the condyle in the fossa. MRI shows the disc, effusion, and the retrodiscal tissue [27,32]. A condyle seen posteriorly on CBCT is a reason to examine the joint. It does not show where the disc is.

Table 5. Clinical question and assessment

7. Anterior and Full-Arch Implants Define the Position

Anterior implants and the envelope of function

An anterior implant restoration participates in the envelope of function. Incisor position governs phonetics, esthetics, overbite, overjet, anterior guidance, and posterior disclusion [29]. Anterior guidance with immediate posterior disclusion reduces elevator muscle activity in excursion [36]. An anterior implant crown or bridge placed with excessive lingual contour or reduced overjet constricts the envelope and guides the mandible distally on closure. In patients with deep bite, severe wear, or extensive anterior restorative history, provisionalize first. The provisional tests phonetics, guidance,

comfort, muscle response, and the repeatability of closure before ceramic makes the position permanent.

Full-arch reconstruction

In a single-tooth case the dentition dictates the occlusion. In a complete-arch case, the restorative team creates it. The prosthesis establishes vertical dimension, incisal position, posterior stops, overbite, overjet, guidance, the occlusal plane, and the surface against which the patient will brux. The adaptive capacity of natural teeth is gone. An umbrella review of seven systematic reviews with at least 5 years of follow-up reported prosthesis survival of 89.5% to 96.8% and implant survival of 95.2% to 99.2%. Complications were common: screw loosening in 5% to 15% and veneer chipping in 15% to 35% of veneered zirconia prostheses. The authors identified cantilever length and occlusal loading as critical factors in stress distribution and complication risk [18]. Survival is high. Mechanical stability is not guaranteed.

A complex complete-arch case should not move from digital design to definitive prosthesis because the teeth look correct and the virtual articulation shows bilateral contact. A digital articulator records a position. It does not test it.

Stabilize before you finalize

The definitive prosthesis should be built at a mandibular position the patient has demonstrated, not one the prosthesis imposes. I call this position Optimal Physiologic Position: the condyle is seated off the retrodiscal tissue, the muscles function without pain, and closure is reproducible. In a patient with joint symptoms, the orthotic is how that position is found and tested before implants are restored. It is the only device that moves the condyle in the corrective direction, forward off the retrodiscal tissue. In a network meta-analysis of 48 randomized trials, the anterior repositioning appliance reduced pain in joint-origin disorders compared with controls and reduced clicking compared with the stabilization splint [33]. Once the position is established, the provisional prosthesis carries it, and the definitive prosthesis copies it.

Adjust the high contact, but ask why it became high

An implant crown that is high should be adjusted. Repeated adjustment without an explanation is the problem. If a crown that was comfortable at delivery becomes high after an adjacent extraction, a new restoration, orthodontic movement, or a joint change, the contact is reporting a change in the occlusion. Grinding the implant crown again removes a stop and leaves the cause in place.

The same applies to screws. Once fit, preload, torque, connection, and design are verified, a screw that continues to loosen is telling you about the loading pattern. Articulating paper shows where contact occurs. It does not show the magnitude, timing, or direction of force. In a patient with a slide or heavy parafunction, watch the closure and the excursions.

8. A Clinical Sequence for Implant Cases with Functional Risk

Table 6. Clinical sequence

Most single implants in stable patients do well with sound surgical, restorative, periodontal, and implant-occlusion principles. The threshold changes with a history of TMJ symptoms, significant parafunction, repeated prosthetic failure, unstable closure, major wear, loss of multiple posterior stops, extensive anterior reconstruction, or a planned complete-arch prosthesis. In these patients the clinician is no longer fitting a crown into an existing occlusion. The clinician is building the position the implants, muscles, and joints will work in.

A crown that chips once may be a material problem. A screw that loosens once may be a preload problem. When the same event recurs after correct technical correction, investigate the loading environment.

The implant can be completely healthy. The system around it may not be.

Conclusion

Implant dentistry has rightly focused on osseointegration, prosthetic precision, passivity, component stability, and control of occlusal load. Osseointegration does not mean the implant is working in a stable mechanical environment.

Implants and teeth differ in sensory feedback and mechanical behaviour. The periodontal ligament allows movement and provides fine mechanoreception. The implant relies on weaker osseoperceptive pathways and acts as a rigid stop in the arch [4–7]. That is why implant restorations require careful control of force direction, cantilevers, contact design, material, and parafunctional risk [1,2,9–11].

An implant restoration is a stop. Stops set where the mandible closes and where the condyle seats [26]. When implant stops are built in a retruded closing position, the condyle is held distally against retrodiscal tissue that is innervated, vascular, and not built for load. Imaging associates that posterior position with disc displacement and with more severe dysfunction [21–25]. Condylar position is not a diagnosis by itself, so the individual joint must be examined before and after treatment [23,30].

For the uncomplicated single implant, conventional implant-occlusion principles may be enough. As treatment expands to multiple implants, anterior guidance, and full-arch prostheses, the prosthesis no longer receives the patient’s occlusion. It defines it.

Implant occlusion is more than where the articulating paper marks. It is how the patient reaches that contact, how force travels once they arrive, and where the condyle sits when they do.

References

1. Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16(1):26–35. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01067.x.
2. Misch CE, Bidez MW. Implant-protected occlusion: a biomechanical rationale. Compendium. 1994;15(11):1330–1344.
3. Klineberg IJ, Trulsson M, Murray GM. Occlusion on implants — is there a problem? J Oral Rehabil. 2012;39(7):522–537. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2012.02305.x.
4. Trulsson M. Sensory and motor function of teeth and dental implants: a basis for osseoperception. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2005;32(1–2):119–122. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1681.2005.04139.x.
5. Song D, Shujaat S, Politis C, Orhan K, Jacobs R. Osseoperception following dental implant treatment: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2022;49(5):573–585. doi:10.1111/joor.13296.
6. Mishra SK, Chowdhary R, Chrcanovic BR, Brånemark PI. Osseoperception in dental implants: a systematic review. J Prosthodont. 2016;25(3):185–195.
7. Hämmerle CHF, Wagner D, Brägger U, Lussi A, Karayiannis A, Joss A, Lang NP. Threshold of tactile sensitivity perceived with dental endosseous implants and natural teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995;6(2):83–90.
8. Aglietta M, Siciliano VI, Zwahlen M, et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(5):441–451. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01706.x.
9. Manfredini D, Poggio CE, Lobbezoo F. Is bruxism a risk factor for dental implants? A systematic review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(3):460–469. doi:10.1111/cid.12015.
10. Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Bruxism and dental implant treatment complications: a retrospective comparative study of 98 bruxer patients and a matched group. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(7):e1–e9. doi:10.1111/clr.12844.
11. Vidal RA, Martins VC, de Figueiredo EZ, Roithmann CC, Bertuzzi D, Grossi ML. Relationship between bruxism and different types of mechanical complications in implant-supported prosthesis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Prosthodont. Published online 16 October 2025. doi:10.1111/jopr.70046.
12. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JYK. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(2):121–132. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00212-9.
13. Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl 6):22–38. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02546.x.
14. Pjetursson BE, Brägger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(Suppl 3):97–113. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01439.x.
15. Lobbezoo F, Ahlberg J, Raphael KG, et al. International consensus on the assessment of bruxism: report of a work in progress. J Oral Rehabil. 2018;45(11):837–844. doi:10.1111/joor.12663.
16. Fu JH, Hsu YT, Wang HL. Identifying occlusal overload and how to deal with it to avoid marginal bone loss around implants. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2012;5(Suppl):S91–S103.
17. Chang M, Chronopoulos V, Mattheos N. Impact of excessive occlusal load on successfully-osseointegrated dental implants: a literature review. J Investig Clin Dent. 2013;4(3):142–150. doi:10.1111/jicd.12036.
18. Tomar S, Agnihotri N, Vhanmane G. Prosthetic complications of implant-supported complete arch prostheses: an umbrella review of systematic reviews. J Prosthet Dent. 2026;136(1):52–59. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2026.03.013.
19. Brazão-Silva MT, Guimarães DM, Andrade VC, Rodrigues DC, Matsubara VH. Do dental implant therapies arouse signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders? A scoping review. Cranio. 2023;41(6):508–517. doi:10.1080/08869634.2021.1885885.
20. Park JB, Kim MK, Choi YR, Huh JK. Temporomandibular disorders during or after dental implant treatment. J Korean Acad Oral Maxillofac Implantol. 2016;20(3):116–122.
21. Gateno J, Anderson PB, Xia JJ, Horng JC, Teichgraeber JF, Liebschner MA. A comparative assessment of mandibular condylar position in patients with anterior disc displacement of the temporomandibular joint. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;62(1):39–43.
22. Incesu L, Taşkaya-Yılmaz N, Öğütcen-Toller M, Uzun E. Relationship of condylar position to disc position and morphology. Eur J Radiol. 2004;51(3):269–273. doi:10.1016/S0720-048X(03)00218-3.
23. Bonilla-Aragon H, Tallents RH, Katzberg RW, Kyrkanides S, Moss ME. Condyle position as a predictor of temporomandibular joint internal derangement. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;82(2):205–208.
24. Paknahad M, Shahidi S. Association between mandibular condylar position and clinical dysfunction index. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43(4):432–436. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2015.01.005.
25. Fernández Sanromán J, Gómez González JM, Alonso del Hoyo J. Relationship between condylar position, dentofacial deformity and temporomandibular joint dysfunction: an MRI and CT prospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1998;26(1):35–42.
26. Crawford SD. Condylar axis position, as determined by the occlusion and measured by the CPI instrument, and signs and symptoms of temporomandibular dysfunction. Angle Orthod. 1999;69(2):103–114.
27. Das S, Maini AP, Kalekar T, Mishra S, Munde AD, Gaikwad T. Correlation of TMJ pain among patients with disc displacement with and without reduction with proton density fat suppression sequences/T2-weighted images of retrodiscal fibers using 3T MRI. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol. 2023;35(4):547–551. doi:10.4103/jiaomr.jiaomr_22_23.
28. Okeson JP. Management of Temporomandibular Disorders and Occlusion. 8th ed. St Louis: Elsevier; 2019.
29. Dawson PE. Functional Occlusion: From TMJ to Smile Design. St Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2007.
30. Schiffman E, Ohrbach R, Truelove E, et al. Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) for clinical and research applications. J Oral Facial Pain Headache. 2014;28(1):6–27. doi:10.11607/jop.1151.
31. Naeije M, Te Veldhuis AH, Te Veldhuis EC, Visscher CM, Lobbezoo F. Disc displacement within the human temporomandibular joint: a systematic review of a “noisy annoyance.” J Oral Rehabil. 2013;40(2):139–158. doi:10.1111/joor.12016.
32. Mallya SM, Ahmad M, Cohen JR, Kaspo G, Ramesh A. Recommendations for imaging of the temporomandibular joint: position statement from the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and the American Academy of Orofacial Pain. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2022;134(5):639–648. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2022.06.007.
33. Al-Moraissi EA, Farea R, Qasem KA, Al-Wadeai MS, Al-Sabahi ME, Al-Iryani GM. Effectiveness of occlusal splint therapy in the management of temporomandibular disorders: network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49(8):1042–1056. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2020.01.004.
34. Manfredini D, Lombardo L, Siciliani G. Temporomandibular disorders and dental occlusion. A systematic review of association studies: end of an era? J Oral Rehabil. 2017;44(11):908–923. doi:10.1111/joor.12531.
35. Tanaka E, Detamore MS, Mercuri LG. Degenerative disorders of the temporomandibular joint: etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. J Dent Res. 2008;87(4):296–307.
36. Williamson EH, Lundquist DO. Anterior guidance: its effect on electromyographic activity of the temporal and masseter muscles. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;49(6):816–823.
37. Bergendal T, Magnusson T. Changes in signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders following treatment with implant-supported fixed prostheses: a prospective 3-year follow-up. Int J Prosthodont. 2000;13(5):392–398.