One‐year evaluation of the effect of physical therapy for masticatory muscle pain: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical therapy is widely used to decrease pain and restore function in patients suffering from masticatory muscle pain. Controlled studies on its efficacy are scarce. This study evaluated the 1-year effect of a 6-week physical therapy programme in a single blind, randomized, controlled trial. Fifty-three subjects were randomly assigned to either a physical therapy group [n = 26; 19 women, mean age (SD) 36.6 years (15.5 years)] or a control group [n = 27; 20 women, mean age (SD) 42.9 years (15.1 years)]. In the physical therapy group, the patients received education, muscle stretching, exercises and homework for nine treatments in 6 weeks. In the control group, the patients received education on the evaluation days only. At baseline and after 3, 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks, pain and masticatory function were evaluated using visual analogue scales, the McGill Pain Questionnaire, pressure pain thresholds of the masseter and temporalis muscles, the mandibular function impairment questionnaire, and active and passive maximal mouth opening. All pain rating variables decreased and all function variables increased significantly over time in both groups. No significant differences in improvement between the groups (time-treatment interaction) were found. These data suggest that the long-term decrease in pain and the improvement of function are not related to active physical therapy.
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 | 0.139 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".