ArticleJournal of oral rehabilitation2026
Comparative Analysis of OHIP Versions for Research on Temporomandibular Disorders.
Article in Journal of oral rehabilitation, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAn international team has recommended assessing oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in four dimensions and using the Oral Health Impact Profile-5 (OHIP-5) for all oral health conditions.
objectivesThis study compared OHIP summary, domain, and dimension scores among individuals with no and different Temporomandibular Disorder (TMD) symptoms, examined correlations across OHIP versions, and explored the use of OHIP-5 for TMD research.
methodsYoung adults completed the Five TMD Symptoms (5Ts) screener and items from the OHIP-49, OHIP-14, OHIP-5, and OHIP-TMD. Participants were categorised into no (NT), intra-articular (IT), pain-related (PT), and combined (CT) TMD symptom groups. Data were analysed with the chi-square test and nonparametric tests, including Spearman's correlation (α = 0.05).
resultsThe final sample consisted of 573 individuals (mean age 19.3 years [SD 1.3]; 82.6% women), of whom 64.0% reported NT, while 21.8%, 4.2%, and 10.0% had IT, PT, and CT symptoms, respectively. Significant differences in summary scores were consistent across participant groups (CT/PT/IT>NT; CT>IT) for all OHIP versions, though variations were observed in domain and dimension scores. Notably, no significant differences in the Psychosocial Impact dimension were identified for the OHIP-5. Summary scores for the OHIP-49 and OHIP-14 were very strongly correlated with those for OHIP-TMD, whereas the OHIP-5 demonstrated a strong correlation (r
conclusionsA four-dimensional impact framework is suitable for use in TMD research. While the OHIP-5 can evaluate overall OHRQoL, its substitution for OHIP-14 or OHIP-TMD should be considered only when brevity is prioritised over dimension-specific assessment.
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.