Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32065109›Full record

SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2020

Oral splints for patients with temporomandibular disorders or bruxism: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

Philip Riley, Anne-Marie Glenny, Helen V Worthington, Elisabet Jacobsen, Clare Robertson, Justin Durham, Stephen Davies, Helen Petersen, Dwayne Boyers

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Philip RileyCochrane Oral Health, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Anne-Marie GlennyCochrane Oral Health, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Helen V WorthingtonCochrane Oral Health, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Elisabet JacobsenHealth Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Clare RobertsonHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Justin DurhamCentre for Oral Health Research and School of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Stephen DaviesTMD Unit, University Dental Hospital of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Helen PetersenUniversity Dental Hospital of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Dwayne BoyersHealth Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
University of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity Dental Hospital of Manchester · GBNewcastle University · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Department of Health 16/146/06Department of Health HTA/16/146/06Department of Health NIHR-CS-011-003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSplints are a non-invasive, reversible management option for temporomandibular disorders or bruxism. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of splints remain uncertain.

objectivesThe objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of splints for patients with temporomandibular disorders or bruxism. This evidence synthesis compared (1) all types of splint versus no/minimal treatment/control splints and (2) prefabricated versus custom-made splints, for the primary outcomes, which were pain (temporomandibular disorders) and tooth wear (bruxism). REVIEW

methodsFour databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched from inception until 1 October 2018 for randomised clinical trials. The searches were conducted on 1 October 2018. Cochrane review methods (including risk of bias) were used for the systematic review. Standardised mean differences were pooled for the primary outcome of pain, using random-effects models in temporomandibular disorder patients. A Markov cohort, state-transition model, populated using current pain and Characteristic Pain Intensity data, was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for splints compared with no splint, from an NHS perspective over a lifetime horizon. A value-of-information analysis identified future research priorities.

resultsFifty-two trials were included in the systematic review. The evidence identified was of very low quality with unclear reporting by temporomandibular disorder subtype. When all subtypes were pooled into one global temporomandibular disorder group, there was no evidence that splints reduced pain [standardised mean difference (at up to 3 months) -0.18, 95% confidence interval -0.42 to 0.06; substantial heterogeneity] when compared with no splints or a minimal intervention. There was no evidence that other outcomes, including temporomandibular joint noises, decreased mouth-opening, and quality of life, improved when using splints. Adverse events were generally not reported, but seemed infrequent when reported. The most plausible base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was uncertain and driven by the lack of clinical effectiveness evidence. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed splints becoming more cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of ≈£6000, but the probability never exceeded 60% at higher levels of willingness to pay. Results were sensitive to longer-term extrapolation assumptions. A value-of-information analysis indicated that further research is required. There were no studies measuring tooth wear in patients with bruxism. One small study looked at pain and found a reduction in the splint group [mean difference (0-10 scale) -2.01, 95% CI -1.40 to -2.62; very low-quality evidence]. As there was no evidence of a difference between splints and no splints, the second objective became irrelevant. LIMITATIONS: There was a large variation in the diagnostic criteria, splint types and outcome measures used and reported. Sensitivity analyses based on these limitations did not indicate a reduction in pain.

conclusionsThe very low-quality evidence identified did not demonstrate that splints reduced pain in temporomandibular disorders as a group of conditions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not splints reduce tooth wear in patients with bruxism. There remains substantial uncertainty surrounding the most plausible incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. FUTURE WORK: There is a need for well-conducted trials to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of splints in patients with carefully diagnosed and subtyped temporomandibular disorders, and patients with bruxism, using agreed measures of pain and tooth wear. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068512.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBruxismChildCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMarkov ChainsModels, EconometricPain MeasurementRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSplintsState MedicineTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalTemporomandibular Joint DisordersYoung AdultBRUXISMCOST–BENEFIT ANALYSISQUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE-YEARSQUALITY OF LIFESPLINTSTEMPOROMANDIBULAR JOINT DISORDERS

Identifiers

PMID32065109
PMCPMC7049908
OpenAlexW2969945448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.