ArticleBMC oral health2025
A comparative study of double occlusal splints combined with joint cavity injection and manual reduction in the treatment of anterior disc displacement without reduction versus anterior repositioning splints: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesSome patients with anterior disc displacement without reduction (ADDWoR) experience restricted mouth opening after manual reduction. This study aimed to compare the therapeutic efficacy of modified double occlusal splints with traditional anterior repositioning splints (ARS) in treating ADDWoR, to identify a simple, effective, and stable clinical approach. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 107 patients were enrolled in this single-center retrospective study. Those using double occlusal splints after successful manual reduction were assigned to observation groups (Group A, Group B). Patients who wore traditional ARS were enrolled as the control groups (Group C, Group D). Group A (n = 29) and Group C (n = 25) corresponded to direct manual reduction, while Group B (n = 27) and Group D (n = 26) corresponded to manual reduction following intra-articular injection. The pain with visual analogue scale (VAS), maximum mouth opening (MMO), triction temporomandibular joint disorder index, and clinical efficacy ratings of the patients in each group were statistically analyzed before treatment, and at the first month, the third month, the sixth month after treatment. Using magnetic resonance imaging technology to observe the relative positional relationship between the articular disc and condylar before and after treatment.
resultsAt one-month post-treatment, groups A and B showed significant improvements in VAS, MMO, CMI, and DI compared to control groups C and D (P < 0.05). At three and six months, group A had significantly lower CMI and DI than group C, with no significant VAS or MMO difference. Group B showed greater improvement than group D across all parameters (P < 0.05). Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed higher disc reduction rates in the observation groups (χ2 = 3.928, P < 0.05). Clinical efficacy was 89.3% in experimental groups compared to 74.5% in control groups (χ
conclusionDouble occlusal splints demonstrated superior stabilization following early manual repositioning and improved structural outcomes compared to ARS. These findings support their clinical value as a treatment option for ADDWoR. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrates that modified double occlusal splints provide more effective and stable outcomes than traditional ARS, particularly after early manual disc repositioning. The findings offer clinicians a simplified, non-invasive treatment strategy that enhances long-term joint stabilization and functional recovery in ADDWoR patients.
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.