Difference between revisions of "1° Klinischer Fall: Hemimastikatorischer Spasmus"

*A set of {{:F:Im}} sentences, and a <math>n\geq1</math> number of other <math>(\delta_1,\delta_2,.....\delta_n \ )</math> statements they are logically compatible if, and only if, the union between them <math>\Im\cup\{\delta_1,\delta_2.....\delta_n\}</math> it is consistent

*A set of {{:F:Im}} sentences, and a <math>n\geq1</math> number of other <math>(\gamma_1,\gamma_2,.....\gamma_n \ )</math> statements they are logically incompatible if, and only if, the union between them <math>\Im\cup\{\gamma_1,\gamma_2.....\gamma_n\}</math> it is inconsistent

==== Significance of contexts ====

Now, for the '''dental context''' we will have the following sentences and assertions to which we give a numerical value to facilitate the treatment and that is <math>\delta_n=[0|1]</math> where <math>\delta_n=0</math> indicates' normality' and <math>\delta_n=1</math> 'abnormality' and therefore positivity of the report:

{{:F:Delta1}} Positive radiological report of the TMJ in Figure 2, <math>\delta_1=1\longrightarrow</math> Abnormality, positivity of the report

{{:F:Delta2}} Positive CT report of the TMJ in Figure 3,<math>\delta_2=1\longrightarrow</math> Abnormality, positivity of the report

{{:F:Delta3}} Positive axiographic report of the condylar traces in Figure 4, <math>\delta_3=1\longrightarrow</math> Abnormality, positivity of the report

{{:F:Delta4}} Asymmetric EMG interference pattern in Figure 5, <math>\delta_4 =1\longrightarrow</math> Abnormality, positivity of the report

File:Spasmo emimasticatorio ATM.jpg|'''Figure 2:'''  <math>\delta_1=</math> Patient TMJ stratigraphy showing signs of condylar flattening and osteophytes

File:Atm1 sclerodermia.jpg|'''Figure 3:''' <math>\delta_1=</math> Computed tomography of the TMJ showing flattening of the TMJ

File:1600px-Spasmo emimasticatorio assiografia.jpeg|''' Figure 4:''' <math>\delta_1=</math> Axiography of the patient showing a flattening of the chewing pattern on the right condyle

File:EMG2.jpg|'''Figure 5:''' <math>\delta_2=</math> EMG interference pattern. Overlapping upper traces corresponding to the right masseter, lower to the left masseter.

The sentence {{:F:Imo}} (dental context) with a number <math>n\geq1</math> of other logically compatible <math>(\delta_1,\delta_2,.....\delta_n \ )</math> assertions determine the union and coherence between them <math>\Im_o\cup\{\delta_1,\delta_2.....\delta_n\}</math> and are represented with a mathematical formalism to facilitate the diagnostic dialectic in the following way:             

The result in this case is <math>\delta_n=1</math> and at the same time it derives the coherent statement of the sentence <math>\Im_o</math> in which it is argued that the symptomatology of the patient Mary Poppins is determined by the presence of a DTMs.

{{Q2|But, paradoxically, in the neurological context

<math>\Im_n </math> we will have the same rational process:|and it is precisely here that the contexts conflict}}

In the '''neurological context''', therefore, we will have the following sentences and assertions to which we give a numerical value to facilitate the treatment and that is <math>\gamma_n=[0|1]</math> where <math>\gamma_n=0</math> indicates 'normality' and <math>\gamma_n=1</math> 'abnormality' and therefore positivity of the report:

<math>\gamma_2=</math> Absence of the silent masseterine period in Figures 7, <math>\gamma_2=1\longrightarrow</math> Abnormality, positivity of the report

<math>\gamma_1=</math> Hypertrophy of the right masseter on CT in Figures 8, <math>\gamma_3=1\longrightarrow</math> Abnormality, positivity of the report

File:Spasmo emimasticatorio JJ.jpg|'''Figure 6:''' <math>{\gamma _{1}}=</math> Jaw jerk detected electrophysiologically on the right (upper traces) and left (lower traces) masseters

File:Spasmo emimasticatorio SP.jpg|'''Figure 7:''' <math>\gamma _2=</math> Mechanical silent period detected electrophysiologically on the right (upper overlapping traces) and left (lower overlapping traces) masseters

File:Spasmo emimasticatorio TC.jpg|''' Figure 8:''' <math>\gamma _3=</math> CT shows evident hypertrophy of the right masseter

Now consequently also sentence <math>\Im_n</math> with a number <math>n\geq1</math> of other logically compatible statements <math>(\gamma_1,\gamma_2,.....\gamma_n \ )</math> determine the union and coherence between them <math>\Im_n\cup\{\gamma_1,\gamma_2.....\gamma_n\}</math> and the formal representation will be similar to that of the dental context:

\Im_n\cup\{1,1.....1\}=1</math> with contextual coherent affirmation of sentence <math>\Im_n</math> in which it is argued that the symptomatology of the patient Mary Poppins has a neuromotor cause and the clinical consequences of a masticatory occlusal type are nothing other than a consequence of the neuropathic damage.

{{Q2|In this scenario both the statements <math>\Im_o </math> and <math>\Im_n </math> are compatible, consistent and therefore true until a 'demarcator of coherence' is found which we previously called <math>\tau</math>