Effectiveness of an 8-week neck exercise training on pain, jaw function, and oral health-related quality of life in women with chronic temporomandibular disorders: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To test the effectiveness of an 8-week exercise program targeted to the neck muscles compared to manual therapy, and placebo treatments on orofacial pain intensity, jaw function, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), and jaw range of motion (ROM) in women with Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD). In this randomized controlled trial, fifty-four women (between 18–45 years old) with a diagnosis of myofascial or mixed TMD according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD) were randomized into three groups: Neck motor control training (NTG), Manual Therapy Group (MTG), and Placebo Group (PG). All patients were evaluated with the Visual Analog Scale, Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire, Oral Health Impact Profile-14, and jaw Range of Motion (ROM) at baseline, immediately after treatment (after 8 weeks of treatment), one month, and three-month follow-up. For all outcomes, a mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was conducted with a Bonferroni post hoc test. NTG was significantly better than the PG group on pain and jaw function at the end of treatment, one- and three-month follow-up (Effect Size (ES) >0.7). For OHRQoL, NTG was significantly better than MTG and PG at the end of treatment and at three-month follow-up (ES >0.7). The results of this project are encouraging, and they could be used to guide clinical practice in this field. Exercises targeted to the neck (which require low therapeutic supervision) could be a simple and conservative way to improve pain and disability for women with TMD with neck involvement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".