ReviewCureus2026
Digital Versus Conventional Splints in Patients With Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Occlusal splints are widely used as a conservative treatment modality for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). With the increasing integration of digital technologies in dentistry, computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) workflows have emerged. Although digital splints are increasingly adopted in clinical practice, their clinical effectiveness compared with conventionally fabricated splints remains uncertain. Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from database inception to March 2026 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing digital with conventional occlusal splints in patients with TMD. The primary outcome was the mean difference of pain intensity post intervention. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. Eight RCTs comprising 390 patients were included. Seven studies reported posttreatment pain scores, showing no significant difference between digital and conventional splints (MD = -0.22; 95% CI = -0.92 to 0.48; p = 0.54; I² = 77.9%). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in limited mouth opening or maximum mouth opening. Patient satisfaction was also comparable between groups. However, digitally fabricated splints were associated with significantly shorter clinical occlusal adjustment time compared with conventional splints (MD = -9.10 minutes; 95% CI = -15.18 to -3.02; p < 0.001). Digital and conventional occlusal splints provide comparable clinical outcomes in patients with TMD with respect to pain relief, mouth opening, and patient satisfaction. However, digitally fabricated splints may offer a practical advantage by reducing clinical adjustment time. Further high-quality trials with standardized outcomes and longer follow-up are warranted.
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.