Cervical Musculoskeletal Impairments and Temporomandibular Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The study of cervical muscles and their significance in the development and perpetuation of Temporomandibular Disorders has not been elucidated. Thus this project was designed to investigate the association between cervical musculoskeletal impairments and Temporomandibular Disorders. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A sample of 154 subjects participated in this study. All subjects underwent a series of physical tests and electromyographic assessment (i.e. head and neck posture, maximal cervical muscle strength, cervical flexor and extensor muscles endurance, and cervical flexor muscle performance) to determine cervical musculoskeletal impairments. RESULTS: A strong relationship between neck disability and jaw disability was found (r = 0.82). Craniocervical posture was statistically different between patients with myogenous Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD) and healthy subjects. However, the difference was too small (3.3º) to be considered clinically relevant. Maximal cervical flexor muscle strength was not statistically or clinically different between patients with TMD and healthy subjects. No statistically significant differences were found in electromyographic activity of the sternocleidomastoid or the anterior scalene muscles in patients with TMD when compared to healthy subjects while executing the craniocervical flexion test (P = 0.07). However, clinically important effect sizes (0.42 - 0.82) were found. Subjects with TMD presented with reduced cervical flexor as well as extensor muscle endurance while performing the flexor and extensor muscle endurance tests when compared to healthy individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with Temporomandibular Disorders presented with impairments of the cervical flexors and extensors muscles. These results could help guide clinicians in the assessment and prescription of more effective interventions for individuals with Temporomandibular Disorders.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".