Short-term comparison of the 660 and 830 nm laser in the treatment of temporomandibular dysfunction – a randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT), 660nm laser with 830nm, in temporomandibular dysfunction (TMD). Aim. To compare the effect of LLLT 660 nm and 830 nm in treatment of TMD. Material and methods. This is a randomized clinical study, composed of 30 volunteers with TMDs selected and divided into three groups: LLLT 660nm, LLLT 830nm and Sham. After the intervention, the results were reevaluated with the Fonseca anamnestic questionnaire (FAQ), American Academy of Orofacial Pain Questionnaire (AAOPQ), McGill Pain Questionnaire and Visual Analog Scale. Results. Analysis of the results showed that, although all groups had reduced values in the FAQ, only the laser groups presented alterations in the level of classification; for AAOPQ, only the treatment groups had a reduction in the positive responses, variables, the reduction was similar for all groups. Conclusion. LLLT produced a reduction in severity of symptoms but was like the sham for pain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".