Evaluation of the quality of life and the impact of pain in patients with temporomandibular disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the quality of life and the impact of pain in patients with Temporomandibular Disorder (TMD) Muscle/joint TMJ of a public institution in Brazil. Methods: The study consisted of two stages: the first step was the application of the Ohip-14 questionnaires, Fonseca's Anamnestic Questionnaire and the McGill Questinionaire (Br-MPQ). In the next step, after the clinical treatment, only the Ohip-14 questionnaire was applied to compare the results after the treatment. The significance level was set at α = 0,05. Results: Overall, 100 individuals were examined and diagnosis with TMD Muscle/joint TMJ. The score OHIP-14 scale before the treatment was 30.02 ± 1.26 (mean ± standard error of the mean) points, being that after treatment it was 8.94 ± 0.63 points, statistically significant (p<0,001). The mean score in the Fonseca scale was 73.25 ± 1.93 points. Regarding the Br-MPQ, the results showed that TMD pain affects the patient in the area of work, leisure, home activities, family relationships, relationships with friends, sleep and appetite. Conclusion: SERDOF-DTM patients had severe TMD with a negative impact on quality of life, directly affecting their daily activities. The treatment proved to be effective in improving this condition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".