Centric relation–intercuspal position discrepancy and its relationship with temporomandibular disorders. A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the relationship between centric relation-intercuspal position discrepancy (CR-ICP discrepancy) and temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), by systematically reviewing the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic research was performed between 1960 and 2016 based on electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Scopus, EBSCOhost, BIREME, Lilacs and Scielo, including all languages. Analytical observational clinical studies were identified. Two independent authors selected the articles. PICO format was used to analyze the studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to verify the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-seven potentially eligible articles were identified. Twenty studies were analyzed, being grouped according to intervention in studies in orthodontic patients (n = 3) and studies in subjects without intervention (n = 17). Quality of evidence was low, with an average score of 3.36 according to Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. In most studies, the presence of CR-ICP discrepancy is associated with the presence of muscle (pain) and joint disorders (noise, disc displacement, pain, crepitus, osteoarthritis and osteoarthrosis). However, the lack of consistency of the results reported reduces the validity of the studies making it impossible to draw any definite conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the heterogeneity of the design and methodology and the low quality of the articles reviewed, it is not possible to establish an association between CR-ICP discrepancy and TMD. The consequence of CR-ICP discrepancy on the presence of TMD requires further research, well-defined and validated diagnostic criteria and rigorous scientific methodologies. Longitudinal studies are needed to identify CR-ICP discrepancy as a possible risk factor for the presence of TMD.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".