Effect of temporomandibular disorder therapy on otologic signs and symptoms: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most common temporomandibular disorders (TMD) signs and symptoms are related to muscle sensitivity through palpation, restricted mouth opening, asymmetric mandibular movements, joint sounds, pain and otologic signs and symptoms. To date, counselling, occlusal splints, exercises, biofeedback and acupuncture are examples of conservative modalities proposed for TMD therapy. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the effect of these conservative therapies for TMD on otologic signs and symptoms. The authors searched the following electronic databases published up to 1st May 2015: PubMed, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science and Science Direct with no time or language limitations. Using a two-phase selection process, the authors identified 08 articles and used them to conduct a qualitative analysis. Methodological quality of each article was performed with the aid of 'Quality Assessment of a Cohort Study' and 'Quality Assessment of a Randomized Clinical Trial', developed by the Dutch Cochrane Centre, a centre of the Cochrane Collaboration. This systematic review showed in seven of the eight studies included that a total or partial resolution of otologic complains occurred after counselling, exercise therapies and occlusal splint therapy. Upon the limitations of the studies included in this systematic review, the present outcomes suggested that there is insufficient evidence in favour or against the conservative therapies for TMD on changes in otologic signs and symptoms. Thus, further studies with a higher level of evidence and more representative samples should be conducted to better understand the relationship of TMD therapy changes on otologic complains.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".