The attached article (below) titled “An assessment of the usefulness of Kinesiograph as an aid in the diagnosis of TMD: A Review of Manfredini et. al’s studies”, authored by B. Cooper & F. Adib that was published in the January 2015 issue of the Journal of Craniomandibular and Sleep Practice (Cranio) documents the truth about Manfredini et. al’s articles.
1. In the April 2013 JADA article, Manfredini et. al. used a K6 jaw tracking device (21 year old unit, never calibrated!) to monitor TMD patients before and after treatment. The authors concluded that since before and after measurements did not change significantly, “K6 is not useful in monitoring the disease in the clinical setting” even though they had used the measurement of the range of motion of the mandible as the only “objective parameter to assess treatment success” in their prior 11 studies! The authors failed to disclose that they had conducted these 11 very similar studies with results and conclusions in sharp contrast to those of their 2013 JADA article.
2. An extensive statistical analysis of Manfredini et. al’s 2013 JADA study versus the authors’ past studies by a University of Washington statistician, who contributed to the Cranio article, concluded that the probability of the authors obtaining the JADA results, given the results of their past studies, is one in 15,000! (see page 60)
3. The attached article substantiates that the publications of Manfredini are part of a campaign by a recognized proponent of the psychosocial model of TMD to disparage the specific occlusal and functional measurement devices and to denigrate the dentists who use them in the management of their TMD patients. Cranio reviewers of the attached article were convinced that Manfredini et. al had no intention of conducting scientific research when they designed a bogus study, later published in the JADA, that would only conclude, even before the first measurement was taken, that a jaw tracking device is not “useful” for the diagnosis and management of TMD patients!
