Effectiveness of mobilisation of the upper cervical region and craniocervical flexor training on orofacial pain, mandibular function and headache in women with<scp>TMD</scp>. A randomised, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies exploring interventions targeting the cervical spine to improve symptoms in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are limited. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether mobilisation of the upper cervical region and craniocervical flexor training decreased orofacial pain, increased mandibular function and pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) of the masticatory muscles and decreased headache impact in women with TMD when compared to no intervention. METHODS: In a single-blind randomised controlled trial, 61 women with TMD were randomised into an intervention group (IG) and a control group (CG). The IG received upper cervical mobilisations and neck motor control and stabilisation exercises for 5 weeks. The CG received no treatment. Outcomes were collected by a blind rater at baseline and 5-week follow-up. Orofacial pain intensity was collected once a week. A mixed ANOVA and Cohen's d were used to determine differences within/between groups and effect sizes. RESULTS: Pain intensity showed significant time-by-group interaction (P < 0.05), with significant between-group differences at four and five weeks (P < 0.05), with large effect sizes (d > 0.8). The decrease in orofacial pain over time was clinically relevant only in the IG. Change in headache impact was significantly different between groups, and the IG showed a clinically relevant decrease after the treatment. No effects were found for PPT or mandibular function. CONCLUSION: Women with TMD reported a significant decrease in orofacial pain and headache impact after 5 weeks of treatment aimed at the upper cervical spine compared to a CG.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".