ReviewCureus2024
A Comparative Analysis of Botulinum Toxin Use Versus Other Therapies for Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of botulinum toxin type A in myogenic temporomandibulardisorders: a single arm, prospective, pilot study.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025Trial
- Diagnosis-based pathways for conservative and minimally invasive management of temporomandibular disorders: a scoping review.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2026Article
- Comparing the Knowledge and Awareness of Dental Students, Dental Practitioners and Patients About Botulinum Toxin and Its Therapeutic Applications in Temporomandibular Disorders.International journal of dentistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Existing literature regarding the efficacy of Botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) therapy in improving the clinical outcomes of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) is ambiguous and lacks consistency. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of BoNT-A in reducing pain, occlusal force, electromyographic (EMG) changes, and maximum mouth opening compared with placebo and other interventions. An electronic database search was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2000 to June 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A manual search complemented the electronic search. The Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) assessment was used to evaluate the internal validity of the included studies. A total of 1719 studies were identified, of which 23 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Nineteen of these studies evaluated pain levels (primary outcome) after BoTN-A therapy, with six of them observing a decrease. In terms of secondary outcomes, seven of 10 studies noted an increase in maximum mouth opening, while all six reported a drop in EMG activity, and all four found a decrease in occlusal force following BoNT-A therapy. Muscle activity and biting force were significantly reduced in the therapeutic groups. Clinicians must consider these adverse events before treating patients with BoNT-A therapy. Additional regulatory guidelines and standardization of injection protocols are essential in improving therapeutic outcomes and patient safety. These findings suggest that BoNT-A may be a feasible option for TMD management but should be used with caution in clinical settings.
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.