Association between chewing dysfunctions and temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) is an umbrella condition presenting several signs and symptoms including pain in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and masticatory muscles, articular noises, earache, headache, irregular or restricted jaw function, chewing difficulty, and limited mouth opening. Such TMD impairment may cause disorders during the chewing process. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to assess chewing dysfunctions measured by sEMG, and their association with TMD. A combination and variation in the descriptors "temporomandibular joint disorders", "masticatory dysfunctions", and electromyography were used to perform the searches across databases. The databases chosen were: LILACS, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science. Additionally, grey literature was assessed using Google Scholar, ProQuest, and OpenGrey. Studies in adults that diagnosed TMD through the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD), Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) or Helkimo Protocol were selected. Furthermore, those studies should have evaluated chewing processes through surface electromyography (sEMG). Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed through the Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (MAStARI) tool. Eleven included studies shown significant results; however, they evaluated discrepant parameters, presented high inconsistency in the application, and had chosen different tasks to analyse the sEMG and hence, there was no consensus in the results of studies. In conclusion, strength of recommendations was very low due to a series of limitations on studies and it was not possible to made categorical statement about association between TMD and chewing dysfunctions in adults when parameters of sEMG were analysed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".