Table 4 Assessment of technical variables selected for the review
Study ID | Protocol | Groups assessed | TMD assessment technique | HRT type used | ERT assessment inferred | Additional inferences |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hatch et al. [26] | Case control | HRT (n = 174) and CG (n = 336) | CMI, DI and MI | Estrogen in the form of esterified estrogens, estradiol, estropipate, estrone and conjugated estrogens. (exogenous) | Estrogen use did not place women at increased risk of developing TMDs | It was observed that women on estrogen replacement were better educated, had higher income and lived in suburban areas as compared to the control group |
LeResche et al. [27] | Case control | HRT (n = 1291) and CG (n = 5164) | Not applicable as cases here were patients referred for TMD pain | Estrogen | An odd of 1.77 (95% CI; 1.53–2.06) was noted for TMD referrals in estrogen users versus non users, significant at p = 0.0001 | A significant dose response relationship was noted. An increased + odds for TMD referral was noted in women consuming 185 mg of yearly cumulative estrogen dosage |
Nekora et al. [28] | Case control | HRT (n = 91) and CG (n = 89) | Clinical examination based on Dworkin and LeResche | Estradiol and conjugated estrogen if estrogen was prescribed; Medroxyprogesterone acetate and norethisteron Acetate if progestin was prescribed | No significant difference was noted for pain in TMJ or surrounding musculature and joint sounds between the HRT group and CG was observed | Women on HRT had a greater proportion of high school education |