OBJECTIVE: To compare splint therapy in temporomandibular disorder (TMD) patients using two splint designs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a double-blind randomized parallel trial, 40 consenting patients were selected from the dental faculty pool of TMD patients. Two splint designs were produced: an ordinary stabilization (Michigan type) and a NTI (Nociceptiv trigeminal inhibition). The differences in splint design were not described to the patients. All patients were treated by one operator. A separate, blinded, examiner assessed joint and muscle tenderness by palpation and jaw opening prior to splint therapy, and after 2 and 6 weeks' and 3 months' splint use during night-time. The patients reported headache and TMD-related pain on a visual analog scale before and after splint use, and were asked to describe the comfort of the splint and invited to comment. RESULTS:Thirty-eight patients with mainly myogenic problems were observed over 3 months. A reduction of muscle tenderness upon palpation and self-reported TMD-related pain and headache and an improved jaw opening was seen in both splint groups (p < 0.05; paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests). There were no changes for TM joint tenderness upon palpation. No differences were noted between the two splint designs after 3 months for the chosen criteria of treatment efficacy (p > 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test). CONCLUSION: No differences in treatment efficacy were noted between the Michigan and the NTI splint types when compared over 3 months.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare splint therapy in temporomandibular disorder (TMD) patients using two splint designs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a double-blind randomized parallel trial, 40 consenting patients were selected from the dental faculty pool of TMDpatients. Two splint designs were produced: an ordinary stabilization (Michigan type) and a NTI (Nociceptiv trigeminal inhibition). The differences in splint design were not described to the patients. All patients were treated by one operator. A separate, blinded, examiner assessed joint and muscle tenderness by palpation and jaw opening prior to splint therapy, and after 2 and 6 weeks' and 3 months' splint use during night-time. The patients reported headache and TMD-related pain on a visual analog scale before and after splint use, and were asked to describe the comfort of the splint and invited to comment. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients with mainly myogenic problems were observed over 3 months. A reduction of muscle tenderness upon palpation and self-reported TMD-related pain and headache and an improved jaw opening was seen in both splint groups (p < 0.05; paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests). There were no changes for TM joint tenderness upon palpation. No differences were noted between the two splint designs after 3 months for the chosen criteria of treatment efficacy (p > 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test). CONCLUSION: No differences in treatment efficacy were noted between the Michigan and the NTI splint types when compared over 3 months.