ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Temporomandibular joint space variation and masticatory muscle activation during clenching with full versus partial covering occlusal splints.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of a Novel Mono-Block Splint Versus a Twin-Block Splint for Anterior Disc Displacement With Reduction: A Randomised Controlled Trial.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- Effect of occlusal splint design and thickness on temporomandibular joint loading: a finite element study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of acrylic splints on bite force among dentulous patients.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOcclusal splints are the main therapeutic choice in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders (TMD). However, their precise working mechanism is unclear. This study aimed to compare the biomechanical effect of three commercially available splint designs (full covering splint, anterior bite splint and posterior bite splint) during biting in a sample of healthy subjects. MATERIALS AND
methodsMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was combined with jaw tracking to measure the minimal intraarticular distance (MID) of 20 human temporomandibular joints (TMJ) whilst simultaneously recording the electromyogram (EMG) of the masticatory muscles. The changes caused by clenching with a bite force of 100 N without splint (baseline) and on each splint were calculated. Repeated measures ANOVA was performed on the means of the MID variations and EMG amplitudes.
resultsClenching on the anterior bite splint resulted in two times less activation of the anterior temporalis muscle than baseline (p = 0.003), full covering (p = 0.011) and posterior bite splint (p = 0.011). MID was reduced by clenching in all conditions, but the reduction was almost three times larger with the anterior bite splint compared to no splint (p = 0.011). The full covering splint and the posterior bite splint did not differ significantly in EMG activation of both masseter and temporalis muscles and MID variation.
conclusionsThis study showed that splint designs have a different impact on the MID and EMG activation while clenching. The anterior bite splint had a greater impact on the reduction of the muscle activation, whereas clenching on the anterior bite splint led to bigger reduction of MID and thus had the greatest influence on alteration in the condylar position. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The design of the splint can affect MID and muscle activation and is a variable to consider in the treatment of patients with TMD according to their symptoms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.