Cargando…

Evaluation of the effectiveness of a semi-finished occlusal appliance – a randomized, controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION: Painful temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are usually treated with physiotherapy, self-exercises, medication-based therapy and splint therapy. For splint therapy different types of splints are available. Therefore this randomized controlled study compared the effectiveness of a semi-f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ficnar, Tobias, Middelberg, Claudius, Rademacher, Bernd, Hessling, Stefan, Koch, Raphael, Figgener, Ludger
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3562212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23351923
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-9-5
_version_ 1782258057861922816
author Ficnar, Tobias
Middelberg, Claudius
Rademacher, Bernd
Hessling, Stefan
Koch, Raphael
Figgener, Ludger
author_facet Ficnar, Tobias
Middelberg, Claudius
Rademacher, Bernd
Hessling, Stefan
Koch, Raphael
Figgener, Ludger
author_sort Ficnar, Tobias
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Painful temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are usually treated with physiotherapy, self-exercises, medication-based therapy and splint therapy. For splint therapy different types of splints are available. Therefore this randomized controlled study compared the effectiveness of a semi-finished occlusal appliance (SB) with a laboratory-made occlusal appliance (SS) in myofascial pain patients. METHOD: The trial subjects allocated to the experimental groups with the (SB) occlusal appliance and those provided with a laboratory-made occlusal appliance (SS) did, in addition, receive conservative treatment (self-exercises, drug-based and manual therapy). The control group was given conservative therapy (CO) only. Overall, a total of 63 patients participated in the study with each group consisting of 21 subjects. RESULTS: When the first follow-up examination took place (14 days after splint insertion) mouth opening within the SB group was significantly enlarged. When the second examination was conducted (2.5 months after splint insertion) mouth opening was significantly enlarged in both splint groups when compared with the initial value. In the control group, no significant enlargement of mouth opening was detected. At no point there was a significant reduction in the number of pressure-sensitive areas of the TMJ. On palpation of the masticatory muscles however, a significant reduction in the number of pressure-sensitive areas could be observed within the CO group and the SS group after 2.5 months. When comparing pain reduction (muscle/joint pain) and mouth opening, no significant differences could be detected between the treatments. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that TMD should be treated conservatively. In cases of restricted mouth opening, the additional use of occlusal appliances can eliminate the patient’s discomfort more quickly. In this context, the tested, semi-finished occlusal appliance appears to offer an immediately available, temporary alternative to laboratory-made splints.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3562212
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35622122013-02-05 Evaluation of the effectiveness of a semi-finished occlusal appliance – a randomized, controlled clinical trial Ficnar, Tobias Middelberg, Claudius Rademacher, Bernd Hessling, Stefan Koch, Raphael Figgener, Ludger Head Face Med Research INTRODUCTION: Painful temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are usually treated with physiotherapy, self-exercises, medication-based therapy and splint therapy. For splint therapy different types of splints are available. Therefore this randomized controlled study compared the effectiveness of a semi-finished occlusal appliance (SB) with a laboratory-made occlusal appliance (SS) in myofascial pain patients. METHOD: The trial subjects allocated to the experimental groups with the (SB) occlusal appliance and those provided with a laboratory-made occlusal appliance (SS) did, in addition, receive conservative treatment (self-exercises, drug-based and manual therapy). The control group was given conservative therapy (CO) only. Overall, a total of 63 patients participated in the study with each group consisting of 21 subjects. RESULTS: When the first follow-up examination took place (14 days after splint insertion) mouth opening within the SB group was significantly enlarged. When the second examination was conducted (2.5 months after splint insertion) mouth opening was significantly enlarged in both splint groups when compared with the initial value. In the control group, no significant enlargement of mouth opening was detected. At no point there was a significant reduction in the number of pressure-sensitive areas of the TMJ. On palpation of the masticatory muscles however, a significant reduction in the number of pressure-sensitive areas could be observed within the CO group and the SS group after 2.5 months. When comparing pain reduction (muscle/joint pain) and mouth opening, no significant differences could be detected between the treatments. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that TMD should be treated conservatively. In cases of restricted mouth opening, the additional use of occlusal appliances can eliminate the patient’s discomfort more quickly. In this context, the tested, semi-finished occlusal appliance appears to offer an immediately available, temporary alternative to laboratory-made splints. BioMed Central 2013-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC3562212/ /pubmed/23351923 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-9-5 Text en Copyright ©2013 Ficnar et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Ficnar, Tobias
Middelberg, Claudius
Rademacher, Bernd
Hessling, Stefan
Koch, Raphael
Figgener, Ludger
Evaluation of the effectiveness of a semi-finished occlusal appliance – a randomized, controlled clinical trial
title Evaluation of the effectiveness of a semi-finished occlusal appliance – a randomized, controlled clinical trial
title_full Evaluation of the effectiveness of a semi-finished occlusal appliance – a randomized, controlled clinical trial
title_fullStr Evaluation of the effectiveness of a semi-finished occlusal appliance – a randomized, controlled clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the effectiveness of a semi-finished occlusal appliance – a randomized, controlled clinical trial
title_short Evaluation of the effectiveness of a semi-finished occlusal appliance – a randomized, controlled clinical trial
title_sort evaluation of the effectiveness of a semi-finished occlusal appliance – a randomized, controlled clinical trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3562212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23351923
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-9-5
work_keys_str_mv AT ficnartobias evaluationoftheeffectivenessofasemifinishedocclusalappliancearandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT middelbergclaudius evaluationoftheeffectivenessofasemifinishedocclusalappliancearandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT rademacherbernd evaluationoftheeffectivenessofasemifinishedocclusalappliancearandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT hesslingstefan evaluationoftheeffectivenessofasemifinishedocclusalappliancearandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT kochraphael evaluationoftheeffectivenessofasemifinishedocclusalappliancearandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT figgenerludger evaluationoftheeffectivenessofasemifinishedocclusalappliancearandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial