ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2025
Centric stabilization occlusal splints vs. other conservative therapies in the management of temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in The Saudi dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of botulinum toxin type A in myogenic temporomandibulardisorders: a single arm, prospective, pilot study.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025Trial
- Review
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
backgroundTMDs are frequently occurring musculoskeletal disorders that affect the orofacial region, leading to pain and functional limitations. Among conservative treatments, centric stabilization splints are widely used, but their superiority over other noninvasive therapies remains uncertain.
objectiveTo systematically review and quantitatively evaluate the clinical effectiveness of centric stabilization occlusal splints versus other conservative managements in TMD patients.
methodsLiterature was searched in Cochrane, PubMed, Scopus, WoS, EMBASE, and LILACS from 2000 to 2023. The study included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared centric stabilization splints to other conservative therapies. The main outcome assessed was the reduction in pain, determined through the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The quality of the evidence was appraised using the GRADE framework. Meta-analysis employed a random effect model.
resultsThe analysis encompassed eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included more than 400 participants. The combined standardized mean difference (SMD) found that centric stabilization splints had a substantial advantage in reduction of pain (SMD = 0.75; with 95% confidence interval: 0.32 to 1.18; p < 0.01). The evidence was assessed as moderately certain. Sensitivity analysis excluding high-risk studies showed minimal change in effect (SMD = 0.72). Functional outcomes and quality-of-life metrics were also identified as additional advantages.
conclusionCentric stabilization splints demonstrate clinically meaningful short-term pain relief in TMD compared to other conservative treatments. Their use is supported in patients with myogenous TMD, but long-term outcomes require further validation.
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.