Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Efficacy of a digitally designed anatomical repositioning splint for adolescent temporomandibular joint anterior disc displacement with reduction: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnterior disc displacement with reduction (ADDwR) is a common temporomandibular joint disorder in adolescents. Conventional anterior repositioning splints (ARS) often lack anatomical adaptation, which may limit their therapeutic precision and patient comfort. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of a digitally designed anatomical repositioning splint (D-ARS) with that of a conventional ARS in adolescent ADDwR patients.
methodsIn this randomized controlled trial, 82 adolescents (aged 12-16 years) with ADDwR were randomly allocated to receive either a D-ARS (n = 41) or an ARS (n = 41). At the 6‑month follow‑up, clinical outcomes were evaluated through three modalities: disc recapture was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), condylar volume changes were measured using cone‑beam computed tomography (CBCT), and patient‑reported wearing comfort was quantified with the Oral Impacts on Daily Performance (OIDP) questionnaire. Statistical analyses included chi-square tests, t-tests, and non-parametric tests as appropriate.
resultsThe D-ARS group achieved a significantly higher disc recapture rate than the ARS group (94.44% vs. 79.63%, p = 0.022). Both groups showed significant increases in condylar volume [D-ARS: +202.17 mm³ (95% CI: 177.72-226.63), ARS: +208.9 mm³ (95% CI: 178.8-241.25), both p < 0.001], with no intergroup difference (p = 0.5615). Patient-reported comfort was superior in the D-ARS group, with lower OIDP scores (14.43% vs. 35.63%, p < 0.001).
conclusionsAt the 6-month follow-up, the D-ARS group exhibited significantly better disc recapture success and patient-reported wearing comfort than the ARS group, while no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of condylar growth promotion.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2400080947, registered on February 19, 2024). Available from: http://www.chictr.org.cn/ .
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.