Trial reportScientific reports2026
Interferential current stimulation during dental facial treatment improves masticatory function.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interferential current transcutaneous stimulation (IW) has been reported to influence swallowing-related sensorimotor function, although its immediate effects on mastication remain unclear. In a randomized, sham-controlled crossover study, we examined whether IW stimulation applied over the masseter region is associated with immediate improvements in masticatory performance. The primary endpoint was glucose elution from a standardized gummy jelly, an indicator of masticatory and occlusal function; the secondary endpoint was a 0-100 mm VAS of chewing ease. Mixed-effects modeling adjusted for period and sequence. IW produced immediate, within-session gains in occlusal function: glucose elution increased after IW (mean difference + 31.5 mg/dL, p < 0.001) but decreased with sham (- 19.8 mg/dL, p = 0.0019). VAS improved within both treatments, with a larger median gain under IW, and the mixed-effects model favored IW over sham. Although this study does not directly assess neural circuits, the observed pattern is consistent with peripheral sensory influences on masticatory output. Expectancy effects and other nonspecific contributors cannot be fully excluded and should be addressed in future studies using active control conditions and direct physiological measures. IW may offer a rapid, noninvasive adjunct to oral rehabilitation; confirmatory trials should incorporate direct force/EMG, jaw kinematics, and salivary measures, and assess durability and clinical outcomes.Trial registration: UMIN-CTR UMIN000058249 (registered 2025-07-01). Direct link: https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000066586 .
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.