SynthesisBMC oral health2025
The efficacy of anterior repositioning splints in the management of temporomandibular disc displacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
- Discrepancy between centric relation and therapeutic position in TMJ disc displacement: a case report.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of occlusal splint design and thickness on temporomandibular joint loading: a finite element study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Diagnosis-based pathways for conservative and minimally invasive management of temporomandibular disorders: a scoping review.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of anterior repositioning splint (ARS) compared with other conservative treatments for temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disc displacement.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched up to January 8, 2024, so as to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ARS for the treatment of TMJ disc displacement.
resultsThis analysis finally included 14 studies. The research findings showed that after 3 months of treatment, ARS significantly improved VAS score compared to the physical therapy [MD: -1.90, 95%CI (-2.69, -1.11), P < 0.00001] and behavioral therapy [MD=-3.00, 95%CI (-4.30, -1.71), P < 0.05]. However, it was less effective than other occlusal splint treatments [MD: 0.71, 95%CI (0.30, 1.11), P = 0.0007]. In terms of pain free mouth opening, ARS significantly outperformed the physical therapy [MD = 2.83, 95%CI (1.04, 4.62), P = 0.002] and behavioral therapy [MD: 1.79, 95%CI (1.33, 2.26), P < 0.00001] after 3 months of treatment. No significant difference was observed between ARS and other occlusal splint treatments [MD=-0.97, 95%CI (-2.65, 0.71), P = 0.26]. Regarding maximal active mouth opening, after 3 months of treatment, ARS was significantly superior to the physical therapy [MD = 3.10, 95%CI (1.05, 5.15), P = 0.03] and behavioral therapy [MD: 3.19, 95%CI (2.71, 3.66), P < 0.00001]. There was no significant difference between ARS and other occlusal splint treatments [MD: - 1.92, 95%CI (-4.05, 0.21), P = 0.08]. In terms of maximal passive mouth opening, ARS was significantly more effective than physical therapy [MD: 1.91, 95%CI (0.13, 3.68), P = 0.04]. There was no significant difference between ARS and other occlusal splint treatments [MD: -2.25, 95%CI (-5.02, 0.53), P = 0.11]. For relieving jaw popping symptoms, ARS was significantly more effective than the physical therapy [RR:0.45, 95%CI (0.34, 0.58), P < 0.00001] and behavioral therapy [RR: 0.48, 95%CI (0.36, 0.64), P < 0.00001]. However, no significant difference was found between ARS and other occlusal splint treatments [RR: 1.29, 95%CI (0.83, 2.02), P = 0.26].
conclusionA total of 14 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, which compared the efficacy of ARS with other conservative treatments for disc displacement. While ARS did not demonstrate a significant difference compared to physical therapy in improving TMJ pain, popping, and mandibular motor function in the initial treatment phase, it exhibited more pronounced effects than physical therapy and behavioral therapy with continued use. Splints have demonstrated significant efficacy in alleviating TMJ popping and improving mandibular movement. However, ARS has not shown superior effectiveness compared to other types of occlusal splints in alleviating pain.
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.