
==== Front
J Res Med Sci
J Res Med Sci
JRMS
J Res Med Sci
Journal of Research in Medical Sciences : The Official Journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
1735-1995
1735-7136
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow India

JRMS-29-33
10.4103/jrms.jrms_660_23
Review Article
The relationship between oxidative stress markers and temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Eslami Hosein 1
Katebi Katayoun 1
Ghaffaripour Saleh Sevil 2
Mirizadeh Lalehsan 1
Hashemi Mohsen 3
1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Medicine, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
2 Private Practice, Tabriz, Iran
3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
Address for correspondence: Dr. Mohsen Hashemi, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. E-mail: mohsen.hashemi3263@gmail.com
2024
12 7 2024
29 3303 10 2023
22 12 2023
10 1 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Research in Medical Sciences
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
Background:

Oxidative stress has a role in many pathologic conditions, including oral diseases and temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs) pathophysiology. This study compared the selected oxidative biomarkers’ levels in TMD patients and healthy controls in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Materials and Methods:

Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase were systematically searched for English articles up to October 2022 using MeSH and free keywords. Joanna Briggs Institute checklist was used to assess the risk of bias. Differences between biomarker levels in TMD patients were compared to the control group.

Results:

Ten case–control studies were included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria with a total of 659 patients: 314 with TMD and 345 healthy controls. The studies investigated 15 markers, including total oxidant status (TOS), total antioxidant status, and malondialdehyde (MDA). There was a significant difference in the salivary MDA of patients with TMD in comparison with healthy people; standard mean difference = 3.22 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28–6.16); I2 = 96.0%). The Antioxidant status in serum was significantly lower in patients with TMD in comparison with healthy people; weighted mean difference = −0.52 (95% CI: −0.90 to −0.14; I2 = 97.0%). The result of TOS was inconclusive.

Conclusion:

Salivary MDA and serum total antioxidative status measurements may be used as a biomarker for diagnosing TMD. Due to the lack of sufficient evidence, it is not possible to express a definite relation between the amount and type of marker and TMD diagnosis, which suggests that more case–control studies with larger sample sizes are required.

Antioxidants
biomarkers
meta-analysis
oxidative stress
saliva
temporomandibular joint disorders
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs) are a group of disorders that affect the temporomandibular joint and masseteric muscles.[1] TMD is considered a multifactorial disease, and many factors, such as genetic, biological, behavioral, environmental, social, and emotional factors could play a part.[2] Diagnosing the origin of the pain is challenging, and the treatment plan depends on it.[3] TMD is determined by pain or discomfort in the temporomandibular joint, the area around the ear, and the masseteric muscles or neck on one or both sides.[4] It could also be accompanied by joint sounds, limited movement, or deviation of the mandible.[14]

Exposure to chronic stress could cause hyperalgesia due to the hypothalamus–hypophysis–adrenal axis.[56] Stresses such as parafunctional habits (bruxism and clenching) may cause irreparable damage to the TMJ.[67] Loading stress will lead to free oxygen radicals, arachidonic acid catabolites, neuropeptides, cytokines, and matrix metalloproteinase enzymes released from the TMJ tissues.[89]

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) is a group of reactive molecules necessary in specific amounts for some physiologic cell functions such as signaling.[10111213] Still, at higher rates, it could cause cell structure destruction, such as lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids and lead to oxidative stress.[1415] Oxidative stress results from the production of unbalanced pro-oxidant/antioxidant factors, generating ROS products such as H2O2, organic hydroperoxides, nitric oxides, superoxide, and hydroxyl radicals.[1314151617]

Considering that TMD pain and discomfort affect life quality and daily activities, understanding the pathophysiology behind TMD, the mechanisms involved in the onset of pain, and its intensity is crucial for determining the prognostic factors and improving treatment strategies.[11]

Since oxidative stress markers could show promising potential as biological markers for TMD diagnosis and treatment, and considering the studies measuring salivary oxidative markers in TMD patients, this systematic review and meta-analysis study is conducted to determine the relationship between oxidative stress markers and TMD.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed based on the guidelines recommended by the PRISMA statement for writing systematic reviews and has been approved by the Regional Ethics Committee (IR.TBZMED.REC.1401.269).

The question addressed by this review was based on the control, comparison, and outcomes model. The main question was: is there a difference between salivary and serum oxidative markers (outcome) in TMD patients (comparison) and healthy individuals (Control)?.

Literature searching and study selection criteria

Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase were systematically searched for English articles up to October 2022 using MeSH and free keywords. No restriction was put on the start date. In addition, selected studies’ lists of references and related conferences were manually searched.

MeSH and free keywords with a combination of (OR) and (AND) were used for data collection using the following keywords: “Temporomandibular disorder(s),” “Temporomandibular joint disorder(s),” “Temporomandibular joint dysfunction,” “TMJ disorder(s)” OR “TM disorder(s),” “Temporomandibular joint pain,” “Temporomandibular pain,” “TM pain,” “TMJ pain,” “TMD,” “Osteoarthritis,” “Temporomandibular joint dysfunction syndrome,” “TAOC,” “total antioxidant capacity,” “MDA,” “malondialdehyde,” “SOD,” “superoxide dismutase,” “GPX,” “glutathione peroxidase,” “NO,” “nitric oxide,” “TOS,” “total oxidant status” and: 8‐OHdG” “8‐hydroxy‐deoxyguanosine” OR “reactive oxygen species,” “ROS,” “oxidant*,” “antioxidant*.”

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies comparing an oxidative stress marker in patients with TMD and controls were included. The studies in which an intervention was done, or the samples were taken from synovial fluid, were excluded. Review studies, case reports, letters to the editor, animal and laboratory studies, studies of poor quality, studies with no control group, and non-English articles were excluded.

Data extraction and quality assessment

After extracting potentially eligible studies from databases, studies were reviewed by two independent specialists (K.K and H.E), who scanned the articles’ titles and abstracts based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any disagreements were solved by consulting a third reviewer (M.H). In the next step, full texts of the selected studies were extracted.

Two independent reviewers (K.K and M.H) used the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist to measure the risk of bias. In the case of a disagreement on scores between two reviewers, a final mutual decision was made. Articles were assessed regarding sample selection, sample size, study context, outcome measurement quality, statistical analysis, and confounding factors. The risk of bias was classified as low when the study reached a “yes” score of >70, moderate when the study reached a “yes” score of 50%–70%, and high when the study reached a “yes” score of <49%. Only articles receiving low and moderate risk of bias were included in meta-analysis.[18]

Data regarding the country of the studies, type of TMD, characteristics of the control group, sample size, age of the participants, and the source of the samples were extracted from the studies. The outcome was oxidative markers which were extracted for TMD and controls. Cross-sectional studies investigating the difference between oxidative stress marker levels in TMD patients and the control group were analyzed.

Statistical analysis

Weighted mean differences (WMD), endpoint scores, or change scores representing the difference between intervention and control groups were used as effect sizes. Standard mean difference (SMD) was used when no same rating scale was used for assessing oxidative stress markers in the study groups. The pooled WMD and SMD with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Der Simonian and Laird method through the random effects model. Cochran’s Q-test and I2 were performed for assessing the heterogeneity between the studies. Due to heterogenicity among studies, random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis.[19] To identify sources of heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis was done by removing a particular study that had the highest impact on the heterogeneity. Since there were less than ten studies in each meta-analysis, evaluation of publication bias and subgroup analysis was not applicable.[19] All statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 14.0 (STATA Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA). The significance level for P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Search results

One hundred and forty-one papers were initially identified, and after removing duplicate studies and irrelevant studies, 18 studies remained, two studies were review studies,[10] one was a laboratory study,[20] one was an animal study,[21] and four studies did not have a control group,[22232425] which were all excluded. Finally, ten studies fulfilled the criteria for the study [Figure 1].

Figure 1 The PRISMA flowchart of the selection process of the study

The results of evaluating the risk of bias

According to the JBI checklist, one study showed a moderate risk of bias,[11] and the others had a low risk.[17262728293031] None of the studies had a high risk of bias. Details are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 The results of the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist of quality assessment

Author (year)	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Total	Risk of bias	
Ege, 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	9/10	Low	
Basi, 2012	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	10/10	Low	
Demir, 2018	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	8/10	Low	
de Sotillo, 2011	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	9/10	Low	
Lawaf, 2015	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	10/10	Low	
de Almeida, 2016	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	No	8/10	Low	
Madariaga, 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	9/10	Low	
Omidpanah, 2020	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	No	7/10	Moderate	
Yaman, 2020	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	10/10	Low	
Vrbanovic, 2018	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	8/10	Low	
NA=Not applicable; Q1=Was the sample representative of the target population?; Q2=Were study participants recruited appropriately?; Q3=Was the sample size adequate?; Q4=Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?; Q5=Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample?; Q6=Was objective, standard criteria used for the measurement of the condition?; Q7=Was the condition measured reliably?; Q8=Was there appropriate statistical analysis?; Q9=Are all important confounding factors/subgroups/differences identified and accounted for?; Q10=Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria?

Characteristics of the studies

A total of 10 studies were assessed with a total of 659 patients: 314 with TMD and 345 healthy controls. The sample size ranged from 30 to 140. The studies investigated a total of 15 markers. Sample sources were either serum or saliva. The descriptive characteristics of the included articles are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 The descriptive characteristics of the included articles

Study	Country	Type of TMD	Control group	Study groups	Sample size	Mean age±SD	
de Sotillo, 2011	USA	Temporomandibular muscle and joint disorders	Non-TMD, nonsmoker females	TMD	20 female	40.5±15.5	
Control	10 female	42.5±11.9	
Basi, 2012	USA	Temporomandibular muscle and joint disorders and Myofascial pain	No history of TMD symptoms, absence of TMJ noise, locking or catching of the jaw, pain in the jaw or the temporal area	TMD	23	23.9±6.9	
Control	27	24.8±5.8	
Lawaf, 2015	Iran	Patients with TMD	Healthy individuals with no systemic condition or drug use, matched for smoking and periodontal disease	TMD	56 (28 female, 28 male)	29.1±3.9	
Control	28 (14 female, 14 male)	28.5±3.9	
de Almeida, 2016	Brazil	Temporomandibular disorders and pain	Healthy age-matched students and staff from the University	TMD	30 (27 female, 3 male)	10–60*	
Control	30 (27 female, 3 male)	10–60*	
Vrbanovic, 2018	Croatia	Painful disc displacement or myofascial pain TMD	Healthy age-matched Females	TMD	20 female	39.3±12.0	
Control	15 female	34.3±7.8	
Demir, 2018	Turkey	Patients with TMJ disorders	Healthy age-matched individuals	TMD	32 (22 female, 10 male)	27.4±9.4	
Control	32 (20 female, 12 male)	27.4±8.8	
Ege, 2019	Turkey	TMJ internal derangement	Healthy age-matched individuals with no systemic disease, no history of drug use or TMD	TMD	70 (60 female, 10 male)	27.3±11.0	
Control	70 (35 female, 35 male)	26.8±7.7	
Yaman, 2020	Turkey	Rheumatoid arthritis	Age and sex-matched healthy individuals	TMD	30 (25 female, 5 male)	42.6±10.8	
Control	30 (25 female, 5 male)	42.6±10.8	
Omidpanah, 2020	Iran	Patients with temporomandibular disorders	Age- and sex-matched healthy individuals without
any systemic disease or history of taking medications, smoking, or alcohol use	TMD	30 (25 female, 5 male)	30.7±13.2	
Control	30 (25 female, 5 male)	29.1±11.2	
Madariaga, 2021	Sweden	Myelogenous temporomandibular disorders	Self-reported healthy individuals with no evidence of disease or current pain	TMD	39 (32 female, 7 male)	27.0±8.2	
Control	37 (31 female, 6 male)	28.2±10.7	
*Age reported as range in this study. TMD=TMJ disorders; TMJ=Temporomandibular joint

Four studies assessed total oxidant status (TOS) among them; one study measured serum total oxidative stress levels,[26] and three studies measured salivary TOS levels [Table 3]. Total antioxidant status (TAS) levels were reported in seven studies, among which three studies measured TAS levels in serum and six in saliva [Table 3].

Table 3 Total oxidant status and total antioxidant status levels in serum and saliva

Study	Source	Marker	Study groups	Mean±SD	
Ege, 2019	Serum	TOS (mmol H2O2 equivalent/L)	TMD	14.61±2.59	
Control	12.27±2.41	
de Almeida, 2016	Saliva	TOS (μmol H2O2 equivalent/L)	TMD	4.402±0.418	
Control	4.671±0.234	
Yaman, 2020	TOS	TMD	14.12±25.37	
Control	3.75±1.63	
Madariaga, 2021	TOS	TMD	6*	
Control	9.5*	
de Sotillo, 2011	Serum	TAS (mmol trolox equivalent/L)	TMD	0.86±0.41	
Control	1.6±0.46	
Lawaf, 2015	TAS	TMD	1.08±0.24	
Control	1.75±0.187	
Ege, 2019	TAS	TMD	1.27±0.29	
Control	1.47±0.2	
de Sotillo, 2011	Saliva	TAS (mmol trolox equivalent/L)	TMD	1.33±0.77	
Control	2.24±0.26	
Lawaf, 2015	TAS	TMD	1.38±0.13	
Control	1.35±0.116	
de Almeida, 2016	TAS	TMD	0.13±0.043	
Control	0.264±0.047	
Vrbanovic, 2018	TAS	TMD	5.47±2.85	
Control	2.65±0.911	
Yaman, 2020	TAS	TMD	0.57±0.25	
Control	0.72±0.18	
Omidpanah, 2020	TAS	TMD	751.2±408.7	
Control	939.1±723.8	
Madariaga, 2021	TAS	TMD	1350*	
Control	1250*	
*SD not reported. SD=Standard deviation; TMD=Temporomandibular joint disorders; TOS=Total oxidant status; TAS=Total antioxidant status

Malondialdehyde (MDA) was investigated in four studies, and two reported MDA levels in serum [Table 4]. 8‐hydroxy‐deoxyguanosine was mentioned in two studies [Table 4], which indicated that the levels of 8‐OHdG in saliva (P < 0.0001) and serum (P = 0.0008) of TMD patients were statistically higher than the control group. The comparison of other markers’ levels is shown in Table 5.

Table 4 Malondialdehyde and 8-hydroxy-deoxyguanosine levels in serum and saliva

Study	Source	Marker	Study groups	Mean±SD	
de Sotillo, 2011	Serum	Malondialdehyde (mmol/L)	TMD	1.0±0.2	
Control	0.7±0.1	
Demir, 2018	Malondialdehyde	TMD	1.4–0.2±4.27	
Control	0.6–0.1±0.16	
de Sotillo, 2011	Saliva	Malondialdehyde (nmol/mL)	TMD	1.415±0.40	
Control	0.92±0.34	
Vrbanovic, 2018	Malondialdehyde	TMD	412.4±378.6	
Control	329.9±214.5	
Omidpanah, 2020	Malondialdehyde	TMD	30.5±(female 29.5, male 8.4)	
Control	24.1±(female 7.3, male 7.8)	
de Sotillo, 2011	Serum	8-OHdG (ng/mL)	TMD	0.9±0.7	
Control	0.0±0.4	
de Sotillo, 2011	Saliva	8-OHdG (ng/mL)	TMD	2.6±0.3	
Control	1.4±0.4	
Vrbanovic, 2018	8-OHdG	TMD	1.7±1.4	
Control	1.9±0.9	
SD=Standard deviation; TMD=Temporomandibular joint disorders; 8-OHdG=8-hydroxy-deoxyguanosine; SD=Standard deviation

Table 5 Other marker levels from serum and saliva

Marker	Study	Source	Study groups	Mean±SD	
SOD (U/mg)	Demir, 2018	Serum	TMJ disorders	1.78–1.31*	
Control	8.24–0.59*	
Madariaga, 2021	Saliva	Myogenous temporomandibular disorders	3.1†	
Control	3†	
Glutathione (nmol/mL)	Demir, 2018	Serum	TMJ disorders	21–140*	
Control	93–6,060,000*	
Ege, 2019	TMJ derangement	10.30±2.09	
Control	10.98±2.30	
Prolidase (ng/mL)	Ege, 2019	Serum	TMJ internal derangement	248.79±46.34	
Control	167.67±51.83	
OSI	Ege, 2019	Serum	TMJ internal derangement	1.12 (0.72–3.08)*	
Control	0.80 (0.53–1.54)*	
de Almeida, 2016	Saliva	Temporomandibular disorders and pain	4.2±0.4	
Control	1.5±0.2	
Yaman, 2020	Rheumatoid arthritis+TMD	2.12±3.15	
Control	0.54±0.28	
FRAP (nmol/mL)	Ege, 2019	Serum	TMJ internal derangement	8.20 (2.33–14.65)*	
Control	10.18 (7.50–15.46)*	
AOPP (nmol/nL)	Ege, 2019	Serum	TMJ internal derangement	0.44 (0.25–2.34)*	
Control	0.30 (0.19–1.49)	
LOOH (nmol/mL)	Ege, 2019	Serum	TMJ internal derangement	0.94 (0.69–4.70)*	
Control	0.55 (0.23–6.76)*	
F2-isoprostan (pg/mL)	Basi, 2012	Serum	Temporomandibular muscle and joint
disorders and myofascial pain	8.8 (7.8–9.9)*	
Control	8.7 (7.7–9.7)*	
CAT (U/mg)	Demir, 2018	Serum	TMJ disorders	0.0077–0.00018*	
Control	0.274–0.237*	
Omidpanah, 2020	Saliva	Temporomandibular disorders	0.535±0.405	
Control	0.466±0.37	
Arylesterase (U/L)	Yaman, 2020	Saliva	Rheumatoid arthritis+TMD	314.20±29.75	
Control	318.60±11.44	
GPX (U/g)	Vrbanović, 2018	Saliva	Painful disc displacement or myofascial pain	56.59†	
Control	91.74†	
*The data is presented as median-interquartile range; †SD not reported. FRAP=Ferric reducing antioxidant power; AOPP=Advanced oxidation protein products; LOOH=lipid hydroperoxide; SD=Standard deviation; TMJ=Temporomandibular joint; TMD=TMJ disorders; OSI=Oxidative stress index; SOD=Superoxide dismutase; GPX=Glutathione peroxidase; CAT=Catalase

Meta-analysis

The random-effects analysis demonstrated a higher level of serum MDA in patients with TMD than controls although this was not significant; WMD = 0.75 (95% CI: −0.23–1.74; I2 = 97.0%). Figure 2a shows the meta-analysis of pooled WMD of MDA in serum (mmol/L) between patients with temporomandibular disorders and healthy people.

Figure 2 Meta-analysis of pooled mean difference of malondialdehyde in serum (mmol/L) (a) and Saliva (b)

There was a significant difference in the pooled estimate SMD of MDA in saliva in patients with TMD in comparison with healthy people; SMD = 3.22 (95% CI: 0.28–6.16); I2 = 96.0%) [Figure 2b]. Overall, we estimated that the MDA’s serum and salivary level are higher in TMD patients.

The random-effects analysis showed that the level of salivary antioxidants is lower in temporomandibular disorders with no significant difference SMD = −0.63 (95% CI: −1.61–0.35; I2 = 91.7%). Figure 3a indicates the meta-analysis of the pooled SMD of antioxidant status in saliva among patients with temporomandibular disorders and healthy people.

Figure 3 Meta-analysis of pooled mean difference of antioxidant status in saliva (a) and serum (b) (mmol trolox equivalent/L) between patients with temporomandibular disorders and controls and with the exclusion of Yaman et al.[17] (c)

The pooled WMD of antioxidant status in serum was significantly lower in patients with temporomandibular disorders in comparison with healthy people; WMD = −0.52 (95% CI: −0.90–−0.14; I2 = 97.0%) [Figure 3b].

Sensitivity analysis

The study by Yaman et al.[17] included patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Because this disease has an autoimmune base, the meta-analysis of TAS in saliva was repeated without this study. With or without this article, the salivary antioxidant levels were lower in patients than in healthy individuals, although this difference increases by excluding this study [Figure 3c].

DISCUSSION

Mechanical pressure on TMJ and masseteric muscles and degenerative disc disorders could lead to free oxygen radicals’ release through different mechanisms, which will cause oxidative stress.[32] Many studies have suggested that the lack of balance between the oxidant and antioxidant factors has a role in TMD and other diseases’ pathogenesis in recent years. In this systematic review, the oxidative factors’ level was compared in patients with TMD in the healthy control group.

Nitzan et al. suggested that uncontrolled oxidative stress causes the lubrication system’s collapse, which is the primary reason for TMJ problems.[33] The presence of inflammation and pain in the muscles or TMJ leads to more free radicals at the site, which initiates a cascade of inflammatory reactions in the joint or muscle.[32] Studies on the mechanism of chronic muscle pain indicate that a local increase in oxidative metabolism, especially in type I muscle fibers, increases the by-products of oxidative metabolism, and stimulates peripheral nociceptors.[3435]

Since measuring each oxidative and antioxidative factor is time-consuming, using TOS and total antioxidant capacity (TAC) could save time and money. Previous studies have confirmed that serum and salivary TAC levels decrease in patients with joint and muscular problems.[34] Among the included articles, eight articles investigated TAC and TOS levels of TMD patients’ serum and saliva, which stated contradictory results. According to Lawaf et al., TAC levels in TMD patients’ plasma with/without pain were meaningly less than the control group, showing the imbalance between oxidant/antioxidant levels due to the pain mechanism.[29] Rodríguez de Sotillo et al. observed lower serum and salivary TAC levels in TMD patients and stated that salivary biomarkers can be a reliable predictor for pain severity and have a significant correlation with serum antioxidant levels.[31] De Almeida and Amenábar showed that salivary TAC levels in TMD patients with pain are significantly lower, whereas salivary TOS levels were similar in both TMD groups, concluding that oxidate stress increases in TMD patients experiencing pain.[27] Yaman et al.’s study also observed lower TAS levels and higher oxidative stress levels in RA patients compared to the control group. However, TOS values were not different from the control group.[17] Ege et al. stated that the significant increase in TOS and oxidative stress index (OSI) in patients with TMD may be related to long-term collagen tissue damage and inflammation and could be effective in the etiology of TMD.[26] The studies of Omidpanah et al. and Madariaga et al. reported different results. Omidpanah et al. showed that TAC levels in saliva in TMD patients were similar to healthy individuals.[6] A study on myogenic temporomandibular disorders patients by Madariaga et al. showed higher levels of antioxidant markers (TAC) and lower levels of oxidative markers (TOS).[11] Vrbanović et al. similarly observed higher levels of TAC in TMD patients.[36] The results of these studies are partly related to chronicity and adaptation to the disease and other factors such as psychological stress.[11]

In a study performed on TMJ patients with and without pain, although there is no relationship between TAC and the severity of patients’ pain, plasma TAC levels were significantly lower in patients with limited mouth opening.[23] According to the meta-analysis results, the level of antioxidants in saliva and serum is lower in temporomandibular disorders than in healthy controls. Our results also indicate a lower salivary TOS in patients with TMD than the controls.

MDA is a valuable indicator showing the high lipid peroxidation level, which leads to cell dysfunction.[38] Inflammatory cells, fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and osteoclasts can produce ROS.[37] MDA is the product of membrane lipids’ peroxidation by free radicals, which have a low-molecular weight. Due to its simplicity, MDA measurement is the most used technique to assess the extent of oxidative stress damage to lipids.[39] Previous studies have shown increased MDA levels in patients with inflammatory diseases and acute pain.[404142] Demir et al. also stated that antioxidant treatment may delay the progression of oxidative stress damage, reduce inflammation, and slow the progression of TMD. This case–control study showed that oxidative stress in TMJ disorders is associated with high levels of MDA.[30] An increase in MDA with increasing pain intensity in TMD patients was also observed in the studies of Rodríguez de Sotillo et al. and Omidpanah et al.[631] The meta-analysis results showed that patients with TMD had higher levels of serum MDA.

Antioxidant defense mechanisms are to prevent redox imbalance (oxidation and reduction) and oxidative damage, which are divided into two groups: antioxidant enzymes and nonenzymatic antioxidants. Superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione peroxidase (GPX), and catalase (CAT) are among the antioxidant enzymes.[4344] The results of Demir et al. showed reduced levels of the antioxidants such as CAT and SOD in the serum which resulted in oxidative stress in TMJ disorders.[30] However, another study showed that an increase in the production of free radicals increases the production of antioxidant enzymes.[25] Similarly, Vrbanović et al. stated higher salivary GPX levels in TMD patients.[36]

Glutathione (GSH) is an antioxidant enzyme that plays a key role against oxidative stress and is essential for eliminating free radical species and protecting the membrane proteins.[45] Therefore, GSH may help reduce inflammation and TMD progression.[46] In the study of Demir et al., the serum level of GSH in the control group was significantly higher than in the TMD group.[30] In the study of Ege et al., the groups had no significant difference in GSH levels.[26]

Lipid peroxidation and protein oxidation are the indicators of oxidative stress. Lipid hydroperoxides (LOOHs) are nonradical mediators of lipid peroxidation.[47] Advanced oxidation products (AOPP) are biological indicators of protein oxidation. In other words, AOPPs are proteins that are damaged by oxidative stress.[48] Ege et al. stated that the significant increase of prolidase activity and oxidative stress (TOS, OSI, AOPP, and LOOH) in patients with TMD may be related to long-term collagen tissue damage and inflammation and could be effective in the etiology of TMD.[26] Studies have shown an increase in lipid peroxidation in patients with TMD (anterior disc displacement with reduction, anterior disc displacement without reduction, and osteoarthritis).[25]

8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine is produced when DNA is exposed to oxidative stress. The effect of free radicals on DNA is the activation of metabolic systems that cause DNA chain cleavage. Damaged DNA becomes immunogenic and causes autoantibody production.[31] The level of 8-OHdG is used as a biomarker to assess DNA damage. Rodríguez de Sotillo’s study reported increased salivary and serum 8-OHdG levels in TMD patients.[31]

Biomarkers can be both a diagnostic marker and a target for treatment, but it should be noted that metabolic and environmental factors, stress, infection, and body microbiota[495051] may affect the level of the biomarkers, therefore be the source of heterogenicity between the studies. Furthermore, the chronic nature of TMD disease can affect oxidative markers’ levels, causing different results in different studies.[52] Therefore, changes in the levels of multiple markers in a certain period may provide more reliable data than a single measurement.

In general, oxidative stress plays a role in the pathogenesis of TMD in both joint and muscle conditions, and free radical inhibitory agents may prevent the pathological process. In other words, antioxidants may be a potential therapeutic agent to prevent the progression of TMD. One of the limitations of the present study, which limits any definitive conclusions, is the small number of studies, especially considering the wide range of biomarkers.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of this study, it is concluded that salivary MDA and total antioxidative status measurements may be considered a diagnostic tool. However, a definite result regarding the amount and type of markers is not possible, and it is necessary to conduct larger case–control studies with a larger sample size. Furthermore, comparative studies between markers may be considered.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.
==== Refs
REFERENCES

1. De Rossi SS Greenberg MS Liu F Steinkeler A Temporomandibular disorders: Evaluation and management Med Clin North Am 2014 98 1353 84 25443680
2. Kapos FP Exposto FG Oyarzo JF Durham J Temporomandibular disorders: A review of current concepts in aetiology, diagnosis and management Oral Surg 2020 13 321 34 34853604
3. Greene CS Manfredini D Transitioning to chronic temporomandibular disorder pain: A combination of patient vulnerabilities and iatrogenesis J Oral Rehabil 2021 48 1077 88 33966303
4. Kalladka M Young A Khan J Myofascial pain in temporomandibular disorders: Updates on etiopathogenesis and management J Bodyw Mov Ther 2021 28 104 13 34776126
5. Liu F Steinkeler A Epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of temporomandibular disorders Dent Clin North Am 2013 57 465 79 23809304
6. Omidpanah N Ebrahimi S Raygani AV Mozafari H Rezaei M Total antioxidant capacity, catalase activity and salivary oxidative parameters in patients with temporomandibular disorders Front Dent 2020 17 1 6
7. Aranha RL Martins RC de Aguilar DR Moreno-Drada JA Sohn W Martins CC Association between stress at work and temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review Biomed Res Int 2021 2021 2055513 34307651
8. Kawai Y Kubota E Okabe E Reactive oxygen species participation in experimentally induced arthritis of the temporomandibular joint in rats J Dent Res 2000 79 1489 95 11005733
9. Kalanjiam V Manoharan G A study of the relationship between stress, adaptability, and temporomandibular disorders Int J Curr Res 2016 8 1 5
10. Braz MA Freitas Portella F Seehaber KA Bavaresco CS Rivaldo EG Association between oxidative stress and temporomandibular joint dysfunction: A narrative review J Oral Rehabil 2020 47 536 46 31880832
11. Madariaga VI Jasim H Ghafouri B Ernberg M Myogenous temporomandibular disorders and salivary markers of oxidative stress-a cross-sectional study J Oral Rehabil 2021 48 1 9 32979853
12. Sies H Oxidative stress: A concept in redox biology and medicine Redox Biol 2015 4 180 3 25588755
13. Forman HJ Zhang H Targeting oxidative stress in disease: Promise and limitations of antioxidant therapy Nat Rev Drug Discov 2021 20 689 709 34194012
14. Ray PD Huang BW Tsuji Y Reactive oxygen species (ROS) homeostasis and redox regulation in cellular signaling Cell Signal 2012 24 981 90 22286106
15. Rahman T Hosen I Islam M Shekhar HU Oxidative stress and human health Adv Biosci Biotechnol 2012 3 997 1019
16. Roi A Rusu LC Roi CI Luca RE Boia S Munteanu RI A new approach for the diagnosis of systemic and oral diseases based on salivary biomolecules Dis Markers 2019 2019 8761860 30906485
17. Yaman D Göller Bulut D Ustaoğlu G Avcı E Taşçı M Dental and temporomandibular joint alterations in rheumatoid arthritis patients and their association with salivary oxidative stress Turk J Med Sci 2021 51 2073 80 34013708
18. Porritt K Gomersall J Lockwood C JBI’s systematic reviews: Study selection and critical appraisal Am J Nurs 2014 114 47 52
19. Deeks JJ Higgins JP Altman DG Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses Higgins JP Thomas J Chandler J Cumpston M Li T Page MJ Welch VA Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.4 Chichester (United Kingdom) John Wiley & Sons Cochrane 2023 Available from: https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. [Last updated on 2023 Aug 22]
20. Dijkgraaf LC Zardeneta G Cordewener FW Liem RS Schmitz JP de Bont LG Crosslinking of fibrinogen and fibronectin by free radicals: A possible initial step in adhesion formation in osteoarthritis of the temporomandibular joint J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003 61 101 11 12524616
21. Sheets DW Jr. Okamoto T Dijkgraaf LC Milam SB Schmitz JP Zardeneta G Free radical damage in facsimile synovium: Correlation with adhesion formation in osteoarthritic TMJs J Prosthodont 2006 15 9 19 16433646
22. Zardeneta G Milam SB Schmitz JP Iron-dependent generation of free radicals: Plausible mechanisms in the progressive deterioration of the temporomandibular joint J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000 58 302 8 10716113
23. Etöz OA Akçay H Neşelioğlu S Erel Ö Alkan A Total antioxidant capacity and total oxidant status of synovial fluids in patients with temporomandibular joint pain and dysfunction Clin Oral Investig 2012 16 1557 61
24. Güven O Tozoğlu S Tekin U Salmanoğlu B Güneş O Relationship between activity of gluthatione peroxidase and nitric oxide in synovial fluid and the progression of temporomandibular joint internal derangement J Craniofac Surg 2015 26 e210 3 25974819
25. Cai HX Luo JM Long X Li XD Cheng Y Free-radical oxidation and superoxide dismutase activity in synovial fluid of patients with temporomandibular disorders J Orofac Pain 2006 20 53 8 16483021
26. Ege B Kucuk AO Koparal M Koyuncu I Gonel A Evaluation of serum prolidase activity and oxidative stress in patients with temporomandibular joint internal derangement Cranio 2021 39 238 48 31021718
27. de Almeida C Amenábar JM Changes in the salivary oxidative status in individuals with temporomandibular disorders and pain J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2016 6 S1 4 27900241
28. Basi DL Velly AM Schiffman EL Lenton PA Besspiata DA Rankin AM Human temporomandibular joint and myofascial pain biochemical profiles: A case-control study J Oral Rehabil 2012 39 326 37 22251087
29. Lawaf S Azizi A Tabarestani T Comparison of serum and salivary antioxidants in patients with temporomandibular joint disorders and healthy subjects J Dent (Tehran) 2015 12 263 70 26622281
30. Demir CY Kocak OF Bozan N Ersoz ME Demir H Is there a role for oxidative stress in temporomandibular joint disorders? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018 76 515 20 29216476
31. Rodríguez de Sotillo D Velly AM Hadley M Fricton JR Evidence of oxidative stress in temporomandibular disorders: A pilot study J Oral Rehabil 2011 38 722 8 21457291
32. Wang XD Kou XX Mao JJ Gan YH Zhou YH Sustained inflammation induces degeneration of the temporomandibular joint J Dent Res 2012 91 499 505 22427270
33. Nitzan DW Goldfarb A Gati I Kohen R Changes in the reducing power of synovial fluid from temporomandibular joints with “anchored disc phenomenon” J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002 60 735 40 12089684
34. Trevisani M Siemens J Materazzi S Bautista DM Nassini R Campi B 4-Hydroxynonenal, an endogenous aldehyde, causes pain and neurogenic inflammation through activation of the irritant receptor TRPA1 Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007 104 13519 24 17684094
35. Stark TR Perez CV Okeson JP Recurrent TMJ dislocation managed with botulinum toxin type a injections in a pediatric patient Pediatr Dent 2015 37 65 9 25685976
36. Vrbanović E Alajbeg IZ Vuletić L Lapić I Rogić D Andabak Rogulj A Salivary oxidant/antioxidant status in chronic temporomandibular disorders is dependent on source and intensity of pain – A pilot study Front Physiol 2018 9 1405 30386251
37. Abdolsamadi H Rafieian N Goodarzi MT Feradmal J Davoodi P Jazayeri M Levels of salivary antioxidant Vitamins and lipid peroxidation in patients with oral lichen planus and healthy individuals Chonnam Med J 2014 50 58 62 25229017
38. Smriti K Pai KM Ravindranath V Pentapati KC Role of salivary malondialdehyde in assessment of oxidative stress among diabetics J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2016 6 41 4 26937368
39. Dotan Y Lichtenberg D Pinchuk I Lipid peroxidation cannot be used as a universal criterion of oxidative stress Prog Lipid Res 2004 43 200 27 15003395
40. Wang X Fan D Cao X Ye Q Wang Q Zhang M The role of reactive oxygen species in the rheumatoid arthritis-associated synovial microenvironment Antioxidants (Basel) 2022 11 1153 35740050
41. Abu-Hilal M McPhail MJ Marchand L Johnson CD Malondialdehyde and superoxide dismutase as potential markers of severity in acute pancreatitis JOP 2006 7 185 92 16525202
42. Cherian DA Peter T Narayanan A Madhavan SS Achammada S Vynat GP Malondialdehyde as a marker of oxidative stress in periodontitis patients J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2019 11 S297 300 31198357
43. Ueda S Masutani H Nakamura H Tanaka T Ueno M Yodoi J Redox control of cell death Antioxid Redox Signal 2002 4 405 14 12215208
44. Güven O Tekin US Durak I Keller EE Hatipoglu M Superoxide dismutase activity in synovial fluids in patients with temporomandibular joint internal derangement J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007 65 1940 3 17884519
45. Liu T Sun L Zhang Y Wang Y Zheng J Imbalanced GSH/ROS and sequential cell death J Biochem Mol Toxicol 2022 36 e22942 34725879
46. Ren X Zou L Zhang X Branco V Wang J Carvalho C Redox signaling mediated by thioredoxin and glutathione systems in the central Nervous system Antioxid Redox Signal 2017 27 989 1010 28443683
47. Girotti AW Kriska T Role of lipid hydroperoxides in photo-oxidative stress signaling Antioxid Redox Signal 2004 6 301 10 15025931
48. Gryszczyńska B Formanowicz D Budzyń M Wanic-Kossowska M Pawliczak E Formanowicz P Advanced oxidation protein products and carbonylated proteins as biomarkers of oxidative stress in selected atherosclerosis-mediated diseases Biomed Res Int 2017 2017 4975264 28884122
49. Tabasi M Javadinia SA Siadat SD Eybpoosh S Yazdannasab MR Kheirvari M Positional vertigo and unilateral gradual hearing loss following sleeve gastrectomy: A case report Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 2020 13 387 90 32104035
50. Tabasi M Ashrafian F Khezerloo JK Eshghjoo S Behrouzi A Javadinia SA Changes in gut microbiota and hormones after bariatric surgery: A bench-to-bedside review Obes Surg 2019 29 1663 74 30793228
51. Lassmann Ł Pollis M Żółtowska A Manfredini D Gut bless your pain-roles of the gut microbiota, sleep, and melatonin in chronic orofacial pain and depression Biomedicines 2022 10 1528 35884835
52. Eslami H Azizi B Katebi K Hoseini Z Association between temporomandibular joint disorders and salivary cortisol levels: A systematic review and meta-analysis Shiraz E-Med J 2023 24 e137608
