Evaluation of the effects of arthrocentesis combined with occlusal stabilization splint on disc displacement without reduction-induced acute and closed lock. A prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Disc displacement without reduction (DDWoR) of the temporomandibular joint is associated with limited mouth opening and arthralgia. In the natural course of the disorder, there is a tendency to progress to degenerative joint diseases. First-line treatment aims to reduce pain and restore joint function. The current study aims to examine the efficacy of an occlusal stabilization splint applied simultaneously with arthrocentesis as first-line treatment in acute and chronic closed-locks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present prospective clinical trial included 40 patients who were diagnosed with DDWoR induced chronic (Group 1, n = 23) and acute (Group 2, n = 17) closed-locks. All participants underwent single session arthrocentesis and were applied occlusal stabilization splints. Maximum mouth opening amounts (MMO), Visual analogue scale (VAS), and McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ) scores were evaluated at baseline, on the operation day, and on seven days after the intervention. The obtained data was analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed-rank, Mann-Whitney U, Fisher's exact, Spearman's correlation tests. RESULTS: According to the baseline data, a significant increase was observed in the amount of MMO in postoperative measurements (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001). A statistically significant decrease in MPQ scores was observed in the postoperative period (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). While a significant difference was observed between the postoperative VAS scores, the scores of Group 2 were lower (p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Although combined arthrocentesis and occlusal stabilization splint provided significant changes for acute and chronic closed-locks in line with first-line treatment goals, acute closed-lock with arthralgia responded better. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05671549.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".