ReviewBDJ open2026
Comparison of digital splints versus traditional splints for bruxism management: a systematic review.
Review in BDJ open, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe prevalence of bruxism in the adult population varies widely. Splints are commonly used to treat bruxism, protect teeth, and alleviate the adverse effects of grinding or clenching. This systematic review aimed to compare the effectiveness of digital versus traditional splints in managing bruxism, focusing in clinical outcomes such as symptom severity, pain reduction, bruxism event frequency, and muscle activity. METHODS AND MATERIAL: A Systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive electronic database search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, Dimensions, and Google Scholar for scholarly journal articles comparing digital and traditional splints. Eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in peer-reviewed journals that investigated the effectiveness of splints in bruxism management. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 was used to appraise the quality of the included randomized controlled trials.
resultsThe literature search yielded 2115 records, of which eight articles met the eligibility criteria. Additionally, the risk of bias assessment results indicated that most randomized controlled trials reported a low to moderate risk of bias. This study's findings demonstrate the superiority of digital splints over traditional splints in managing bruxism. However, this difference was not statistically significant.
conclusionsDigital splints showed a tendency toward improved outcomes in managing bruxism compared to traditional splints, but the lack of statistical significance highlights the need for further research to confirm these findings.
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.