Trial reportJournal of oral rehabilitation2026
Effectiveness of a Novel Mono-Block Splint Versus a Twin-Block Splint for Anterior Disc Displacement With Reduction: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Trial report 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnterior disc displacement with reduction (ADDwR) is a common subtype of temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Anterior repositioning splint (ARS) serves as a key conservative treatment modality. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of a novel Mono-Block splint (nMB) with that of a Twin-Block (TB) splint in the management of ADDwR.
methodsA total of 118 patients with ADDwR were randomised to receive either an nMB or TB splint. Clinical outcomes were assessed at baseline (T0), 1 month (T1), 3 months (T3) and 6 months (T6). CBCT scans were obtained at T0 and T6, and patient satisfaction was evaluated at T6.
resultsJoint noise: The nMB group showed significantly greater improvement than the TB group at T1 and T6. Joint pain: Greater symptom relief was observed in the nMB group at the third time point (T3). MMO: The nMB splint induced a significantly greater increase in MMO only at T1. The condyle-fossa relationship: CBCT evaluation revealed comparable outcomes between the two groups, with no significant difference. Patient satisfaction: The nMB splint achieved significantly higher ratings in general satisfaction, comfort and stability, while no significant differences were noted in cleaning and retention.
conclusionThe nMB splint demonstrated superior effectiveness in reducing joint noise and improving patient comfort compared to the TB splint, while both splints exhibited similar efficacy in relieving joint pain and enhancing MMO. The nMB design offers a promising, patient-oriented approach for conservative treatment of ADDwR. Future studies will incorporate more comprehensive assessments, including MRI evaluation, and extend the follow-up period beyond 6 months to better determine the long-term therapeutic effectiveness of the nMB splint.
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.