ArticleJournal of oral rehabilitation2026
Occlusal Sensitivity to Articulating Foils in Patients With Temporomandibular Disorders and Healthy Controls.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bruxism Frequency and Low-Intensity Occlusal Tactile Detection in Healthy Adults.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare occlusal tactile acuity (OTA), the ability to detect and discriminate occlusal contacts, between patients with chronic painful temporomandibular disorders (TMDp) and healthy controls and to examine the influence of pain and oral behaviours on foil perception.
methodsForty TMDp patients (34 female, 6 male) and 40 healthy controls (20 female, 20 male) completed OTA testing with foils 8-56 μm thickness and a sham stimulus (48 trials). Participants bit in maximal intercuspal position and gave yes/no responses regarding foil perception. Oral behaviours were assessed using the Oral Behaviour Checklist (OBC). Repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated group and thickness effects, and signal detection theory separated perceptual sensitivity from response bias.
resultsTMDp patients showed higher recognition accuracy across thin foil thicknesses, with the most robust group difference observed at 32 μm after correction for multiple comparisons. They also exhibited higher perceptual sensitivity and a more liberal response criterion. Regression analyses identified TMDp status and female sex as positive predictors of perceptual sensitivity, whereas OBC-total and OBC-night were negative predictors. Models with decision bias as the outcome showed that TMDp predicted a more liberal criterion, while all OBC subscales predicted a more conservative criterion.
conclusionTMDp participants detected thinner foils more accurately but tended to overreport contact presence. In contrast, frequent oral behaviours were associated with reduced perceptual sensitivity and more conservative response tendencies.
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.