Is there a difference in response to manual cranial bone tissue assessment techniques between participants with cervical and/or temporomandibular complaints versus a control group?

Aim: Manual cranial bone tissue techniques (CBTT) are used by physiotherapists as a tool for assessment and treatment of complaints in the craniocervical, face, and head regions. The goal of this study was to determine whether CBTT were able to discriminate between subjects with cervical and/or temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and a healthy group. In addition, the inter-rater reliability when applying CBTT was also investigated.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted and included 60 participants. Six standardized passive techniques were applied and judged for resistance, compliance, and sensory answer. In order to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of these techniques a cohort of participants was measured twice (by two evaluators) prospectively. A logistic regression model and Receiver Operating Curve (ROC) analyses were used to determining the discriminative validity of these techniques.

Results: Logistic regression identified a significant difference for five techniques for resistance and/or compliance and/or the sensory answer between the groups. Based on the Area Under the Curve (AUC) analysis, the discriminative ability of the temporal rotation to distinguish between the groups was fair to good (for resistance AUC = 0.7775 and for compliance AUC = 0.8065). The highest agreement between the two assessors was for the resistance with occipital compression (73%) technique.

Conclusion: This study highlights that some of the CBTT could be potentially useful in distinguishing subjects with cervical and/or TMD from healthy subjects. Inter-rater reliability was moderate. CBTT could be potentially integrated in the examination of participants with complaints in the craniofacial region.