A mandibular advancement appliance reduces pain and rhythmic masticatory muscle activity in patients with morning headache.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the influence of an oral appliance on morning headache and orofacial pain in subjects without reported sleep-disordered breathing (SDB). METHODS: Twelve subjects aged 27.6 ± 2.1 (mean ± SE) years and suffering from frequent morning headache participated in this study. Each subject was individually fitted with a mandibular advancement appliance (MAA). The first two sleep laboratory polygraphic recording (SLPR) nights were for habituation (N1) and baseline (N2). Subjects then slept five nights without the MAA (period 1: P1), followed by eight nights with the MAA in neutral position (P2), ending with SLPR night 3 (N3). Subjects then slept five nights without the MAA (P3), followed by eight nights with the MAA in 50% advanced position (P4), ending with SLPR night 4 (N4). Finally, subjects slept 5 nights without the MAA (P5). Morning headache and orofacial pain intensity were assessed each morning with a 100-mm visual analog scale. Repeated measures ANOVAs and Friedman tests were used to evaluate treatment effects. RESULTS: Compared to the baseline period (P1), the use of an MAA in both neutral and advanced position was associated with a ⋝ 70% reduction in morning headache and ⋝ 42% reduction in orofacial pain intensity (P ⋜ .001). During the washout periods (P3 and P5), morning headache and orofacial pain intensity returned to close to baseline levels. Compared to N2, both MAA positions significantly reduced (P < .05) rhythmic masticatory muscle activity (RMMA). CONCLUSION: Short-term use of an MAA is associated with a significant reduction in morning headache and orofacial pain intensity. Part of this reduction may be linked to the concomitant reduction in RMMA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".