LAUSR

Introduction: The purposes of this study were to determine how many systematic reviews and meta‐analyses relating to temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) had been published as of 2017 compared with those published as of 2004 and then to summarize the findings, based on an analysis of the abstracts from those studies. Methods: A PubMed search was initiated on May 1, 2017. There were 2 separate searches. The first search was for the topic, “temporomandibular disorders.” The second search was for “temporomandibular disorders and published in the Cochrane database.” The number and the topic category of reviews for 2017 were compared with those published as of 2004. Results: There were 120 relevant TMD systematic reviews found in search year 2017: 110 from the PubMed and 10 from the Cochrane searches. By comparison, there were only 8 TMD systematic reviews published in 2004. The abstracts for all 120 reviews indicated increased roles of genetics and psychosocial factors in the etiology of TMD. The future of TMD diagnoses appears to be toward various psychosocial and cellular tests, along with brain neuroimaging. The reviews on the topic of “treatment” supported conservative, noninvasive, reversible therapies, with a trend toward more targeted individual strategies. Conclusions: There were only 8 TMD systematic reviews published in 2004 compared with 110 in 2017. Overall, the trend has been in the direction of better diagnostic procedures, more scientific concepts of etiology, and more conservative treatments for TMD. HIGHLIGHTSA 2004 literature search found 8 systematic reviews on TMD.A 2017 search found 110 relevant systematic reviews in PubMed and 10 in Cochrane.In 2017, 58 of the PubMed listings and all 10 of the Cochrane listings reported on treatments.Conservative, noninvasive, and reversible TMD treatments are preferred.No evidence was found that orthodontic treatment causes, cures, or prevent TMDs.