Effects of therapies for temporomandibular disorder on the craniocervical posture: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The present study searched evaluate whether the occlusal splint, physiotherapy and counseling therapies used in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) alter the craniocervical posture and pain. Methods: Controlled, randomized, blinded study that included individuals previously diagnosed with TMD through the RDC/TMD (Research criteria for temporomandibular disorders). The patients were randomly selected from four treatment groups: occlusal splint (OS, n = 17), physiotherapy (P, n = 19), counseling (C, n = 15) and occlusal splint associated with counseling (OSC = 14), totaling 65 individuals. For the postural analysis, a teleradiography was performed at the baseline and 1 month after the application of the therapy, in order to observe the occiput-atlas distance (OAD), the craniocervical angle (CCA) and the positioning of the hyoid triangle (HT). CorelDraw X6 software (2012 Corel Corporation, Canada) was used in the images. The data obtained was submitted to several paired T tests (α = 5%) and for the pain variable the SPANOVA test was applied. Results: Except for the OSC group in the CCA variable (p = 0.003), the results showed that there was no statistically significant difference for the analyzed variables regarding the different therapies over time. However, it can be observed that all the treatment groups allowed a reduction of the patients' pain (p = 0.013) over time. Conclusion: It is concluded that the therapies applied have little influence on craniocervical posture but are effective for the relief of painful symptoms.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.010 | 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".