4.2 Review

Oral splints for temporomandibular disorder or bruxism: a systematic review

期刊

BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL
卷 228, 期 3, 页码 191-197

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41415-020-1250-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme [16/146/06]
  2. Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To evaluate the clinical-effectiveness of oral splints for patients with TMD or bruxism for the primary outcomes: pain (TMD) and tooth wear (bruxism). Data sources Four databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception until 1 October 2018. Data selection and extraction Randomised controlled trials comparing all types of splints versus no/minimal treatment for patients with TMD or bruxism were eligible. Standard Cochrane review methods were used. Standardised mean differences (SMD) were pooled for the primary outcome of pain, using random effects models in TMD patients. Data synthesis Thirty-seven trials were included and the evidence identified was of very low certainty using GRADE assessments. When all subtypes of TMD were pooled into one global TMD group, there was no evidence that splints reduced pain: SMD (up to 3 months) -0.18 (95% CI -0.42 to 0.06); 13 trials, 1,076 participants. There was no evidence that any other outcomes improved when using splints. There was no evidence of adverse events associated with splints, but reporting was poor regarding this outcome. No trials measured tooth wear in patients with bruxism. There was a large variation in diagnostic criteria, splint types and outcome measures used and reported. Sensitivity analyses based on these factors did not indicate a reduction in pain. Conclusions The very low-certainty evidence identified did not demonstrate that splints reduced pain in TMD as a group of conditions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether splints reduce tooth wear in patients with bruxism.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据