ArticleOdontology2026
Finite element evaluation of unilateral distraction splints: implications for temporomandibular joint loading patterns.
Article in Odontology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although once widely used in temporomandibular disorder (TMD) therapy, unilateral distraction splints (DSs) have raised concern for generating compressive rather than distractive effects on the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). This finite element analysis investigated the biomechanical behavior of two unilateral splint designs (DS7 and DS567) in a healthy TMJ model, focusing on the influence of ipsilateral masseter force and capsular stiffness. Cone-beam computed tomography data from a healthy adult were used to create anatomical models and unilateral clenching was simulated under three levels of ipsilateral masseter force and three capsule stiffness conditions (baseline, - 5%, - 10%). Condylar and disc stress and displacement responses were calculated using nonlinear static analysis. Increasing ipsilateral masseter force markedly elevated both condylar and disc displacement, with the DS7 design producing approximately 60% higher disc and 30% higher condylar movement than DS567. Decreasing capsular stiffness yielded only minor additional displacement (< 2.5%). In all simulations, both condyles moved predominantly in a superior, compressive direction, with contralateral structures consistently exhibiting greater von Mises stress peaks ~ 1.2 MPa in the posterior-medial disc and ~ 1.0 MPa on the anterior condylar surface. Masseter muscle force was the dominant determinant of joint loading, whereas capsular stiffness had a minor effect. Broader splint coverage reduced stress and displacement, suggesting a role of splint geometry in modulating load transmission. These findings provide model-based insight into the unilateral DSs, suggesting predominantly compressive rather than distractive joint responses, under simulated conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42547725What 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.