Does Splint Therapy Work for Temporomandibular Pain?

Data sources: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Library Issue 2 from 2003, Medline and Embase were all data sources. Relevant journals were also searched by hand and the reference lists of chosen studies were screened. Experts in the field were contacted and there were no language restrictions. Study selection: To be selected, the studies had to be randomised controlled trials (RCT) or quasi-RCT, in which splint therapy was compared concurrently with no treatment, other occlusal appliances or any other active intervention. Data Extraction and synthesis: Data extraction was carried out independently and in duplicate. Validity assessment of the chosen trials was carried out at the same time as data extraction. Discrepancies were discussed and a third reviewer consulted. The author of the primary study was contacted where necessary. The studies were grouped according to treatment type and duration of follow-up. Results: Twenty potentially relevant RCT were identified. Eight were later excluded, leaving 12 trials for analysis. Stabilisation splint therapy (SS) was compared with: acupuncture, bite plates, biofeedback/stress management, visual feedback, relaxation, jaw exercises, non-occluding appliance and minimal/no treatment. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in the effectiveness of SS in reducing symptoms in patients with pain dysfunction syndrome (PDS) compared with other active treatments. There was weak evidence to suggest that the use of SS for the treatment of PDS may be beneficial for reducing pain severity, at rest and on palpation, compared with no treatment. Conslusions: There is insufficient evidence either for or against the use of SS for the treatment of temporomandibular PDS. This review suggests the need for further, rigorous RCT that consider the method of allocation and outcome assessment, have large sample size and sufficient duration of follow-up. A standardisation of the outcomes of the treatment of PDS should be established in the RCT

Undergraduates and graduates perception of achieved competencies in temporomandibular disorders and orofacial pain in a problem-based dental curriculum in Sweden

AIMS: Aims of this study were to assess undergraduates' and graduates' perceptions of their education by documenting their attitudes and investigating acquired competencies in temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and orofacial pain (OP). METHODS: In 2006, 141 undergraduates (in semesters 1, 6, and 10 of a 5-year dental programme) and 60 graduates of 2000 and 2001 were invited to fill in questionnaires designed for their levels. The four questionnaires contained open-ended questions, closed-ended questions, and questions requiring a scaled response on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). Questions covered personal experience of pain, attitudes toward TMD/OP, clinical competencies, and satisfaction with their education. Participants rated importance of and satisfaction with clinical competencies on a 5-point scale. RESULTS: The importance of understanding TMD/OP patients was rated high (NRS 9-10) and attitudes to given statements about TMD/OP patients were positive. In general, perception of clinical competencies increased with level of education. Mean scores for importance of and satisfaction with clinical competencies of 10th semester undergraduates and graduates were above 4.0. Median graduate satisfaction with undergraduate education in TMD/OP patient management was high (NRS 9). All but one graduate had treated patients with TMD/OP. One-third of the responding graduates expressed a wish for additional training, such as in pharmacological treatment and evaluation of treatment outcome. CONCLUSION: In general, the perception of acquired clinical competencies in TMD and OP increased with level of education, and the importance of, and satisfaction with, training was highly rated. Positive attitudes toward these kinds of patients were expressed at all levels

A 6- and 12-month follow-up of appliance therapy in TMD patients : a follow-up of a controlled trial

PURPOSE: This study compared the long-term effects of treatment with a stabilization appliance and treatment with a control appliance in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a controlled trial, 60 TMD patients with tem-poromandibular joint (TMJ) pain were evaluated after 10 weeks of treatment with either a stabilization appliance or a control appliance. At the 10-week follow-up, the 60 patients were assigned to one of three groups according to their demand for treatment. Group T, the treatment group, comprised 30 patients treated with a stabilization appliance; group C, the control group, comprised nine patients treated with a control appliance; and group M, the mixed treatment group, comprised 21 patients treated with first a control appliance and then a stabilization appliance. Signs and symptoms were evaluated in all three groups at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. RESULTS: At the 6- and 12-month follow-ups, a significant reduction in TMJ pain as measured on a visual analogue scale was found in all three groups, and a significant decrease in signs and symptoms was found in groups T and M. CONCLUSION: After 6 and 12 months of use, the stabilization appli-ance was found to still be effective in the alleviation of signs and symptoms in patients with TMD. Many patients in group C changed to a stabilization appliance at the 1 0-week follow-up, which significantly reduced the number of patients in this group. Most patients reported positive change in overall subjective symptoms in this trial. The stabilization appliance can therefore be recommended for patients with TMD

Treatment outcome of short- and long-term appliance therapy in patients with TMD of myogenous origin and tension-type headache

The aim was to compare the short- and long-term effect of a stabilization appliance with a control appliance in myofascial pain patients suffering from episodic or chronic tension-type headache. Sixty patients (mean age 29 +/- 12 years) with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) of myogenous origin and headache were studied in this prospective controlled study. Seventy-seven per cent of the patients reported episodic and 23% chronic tension-type headache at the start of the study. The 60 patients were randomly assigned to a treatment group (stabilization appliance) or to a control group (control appliance). The patients were interviewed regarding symptoms of headache and myofascial pain and clinically examined for masticatory muscle tenderness. At the 10-week and the 6- and 12-month evaluations of appliance therapy, the treatment outcome of tension-type headache was studied. At the 10-week evaluation, 17 patients dropped-out from the control group by requesting another appliance and receiving a stabilization appliance. Another patient in the control group dropped out later during the trial. In an intent-to-treat analysis, significant differences in improvement of headache between treatment and control groups were found at the follow-ups. A 30% reduction of muscles tender to palpation correlated significantly to improvement of headache at all follow-ups. The stabilization appliance seems to have a positive effect on tension-type headache, both in a short- and in a long-term perspective in patients with TMD with pain of myogenous origin

Treatment Outcome of Appliance Therapy in Temporomandibular Disorder Patients with Myofascial Pain after 6 and 12 Months

Aim: To compare the long-term effect of treatment with a stabilization appliance (group T) and treatment with a control appliance (group C) in temporomandibular disorder (TMD) patents with myofascial pain. Methods: In this controlled trial, 60 patients (mean age 29 years) with myofascial pain were evaluated after 10 weeks of treatment with either a stabilization appliance or a control appliance. All 60 patients were then assigned to 1 of 3 groups according to demand for treatment. Seventeen patients from group C requested another appliance and were given a stabilization appliance, thus creating a mixed group (group M). Results: A significant difference was found between groups T and C. at the 6- and 12-months follow-ups, a significant reduction in myofascial pain, as measured on a visual analogue scale, was found in all three groups. A significant decrease in frequency and intensity of myofascial pain was found in group T at the follow-ups. A significant decrease in number of tender sites on the masticatory muscles was found in group T at the follow-ups. Conclusion: The results support the conclusion that the positive treatment outcome obtained by use of a stabilization appliance to alleviate the signs and symptoms in patients with myofascial pain persisted after 6 and 12 months. Most patients in groups T and M reported positive changes in overall subjective symptoms in this trial. We therefore recommend user of the stabilization appliance in the treatment of TMD patients with myofascial pain