SynthesisAustralian dental journal2025
Comparison of the effects of occlusal splint and Botox injections on the amount of mouth opening and chronic pain in individuals with temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Australian dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis study was carried out to compare the effectiveness of occlusal splint (OS) and Botox (BTX) injections in temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). MATERIAL AND
methodsIrrespective of the starting year, studies were searched for up to 2024 using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus databases and the Google Scholar search engine. In the study, graded chronic pain scale and maximum mouth opening amount parameters were analysed with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis programme.
resultsOut of 619 studies, only six were included in the meta-analysis. The effect size was 0.293 in favour of BTX in the studies evaluating the maximum mouth-opening (MMO) range. However, the amount of MMO did not show a statistically significant difference between the OS and BTX groups (95% CI - 0.383 to 0.969, P = 0.395, z = -0.850). In the subgroup analyses carried out based on the follow-up periods, it was found that the MMO was statistically significantly higher in the BTX group at the first week and in the OS group at the third month. However, there was no significant difference observed at the first, second, sixth and twelfth month follow-ups (P > 0.05). No significant difference was found between the groups (P > 0.05) in the publications that evaluated the graded chronic pain scale (GCPS), although an effect size of 0.673 was found in favour of OS (95% CI 0.331 to 1.365, P = 0.272, z = -1.098).
conclusionBTX injections and OS applications show significant differences in the MMO of individuals in the early period. In contrast, the MMO of individuals and the GCPS show similar findings in the sixth month and longer follow-up.
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.