| Literature DB >> 26200526 |
Paulo César Rodrigues Conti1, Ana Silvia da Mota Corrêa1, José Roberto Pereira Lauris2, Juliana Stuginski-Barbosa1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The benefit of the use of some intraoral devices in arthrogenous temporomandibular disorders (TMD) patients is still unknown. This study assessed the effectiveness of the partial use of intraoral devices and counseling in the management of patients with disc displacement with reduction (DDWR) and arthralgia.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26200526 PMCID: PMC4621948 DOI: 10.1590/1678-775720140438
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Appl Oral Sci ISSN: 1678-7757 Impact factor: 2.698
Figure 1Three hundred patients were clinically examined according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Screening showed that 240 subjects met one or more of the exclusion criteria. The remaining 60 patients were randomized for treatment in the study. AROS = anterior repositioning occlusal splint; NTI-tss = Nociceptive Trigeminal Inhibition Clenching Suppression System
Figure 2Pain intensity for the three groups at different times with intra-group ANOVA analysis test
The mean (SD) Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, pressure pain threshold (kgf/cm2) and mandibular range of motion (in millimeters) for all groups at baseline and 3 months (ANOVA and Tukey´s test)
| Group I | Group II | Group III | p-values between groups | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 3 Months | Baseline | 3 Months | Baseline | 3 Months | Baseline | 3 Months | |
| Pressure Pain Threshold | ||||||||
| TMJ right | 1.67 (0.47) | 1.58 (0.33) | 1.76 (0.71) | 1.61 (0.49) | 1.34 (0.35) | 1.30 (0.29) | 0.68 | 0.16 |
| TMJ left | 1.57 (0.33) | 1.53 (0.44) | 1.75 (0.65) | 1.63 (0.57) | 1.37 (0.51) | 1.47 (0.39) | 0.67 | 0.74 |
| Mandibular range of motion | 40.5 (10.2) | 41.2 (7.2) | 38.4 (7.9) | 42.2 (6.4) | 39.8 (6.9) | 39.3 (6.1) | 0.45 | 0.61 |
| Number of occlusal contacts | 25.7 (8.6) | 26.7 (7.2) | 26.6 (11.3) | 26.9 (9.1) | 23.7 (6.2) | 22.9 (4.4) | 0.95 | 0.45 |
TMJ=Temporomandibular joint
Figure 3Presence of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) clicking sounds for the three groups at different times. For each subject, two TMJs were considered (n=120)