Tobacco smoking and its impact on pain intensity of temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review and metanalysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) encompass a spectrum of orofacial conditions characterised by pain and dysfunction in the temporomandibular joint and surrounding structures. Tobacco smoking has been posited as a potential factor influencing the prevalence and intensity of TMD. However, the nature and extent of this relationship remain unclear due to variations in study outcomes. This systematic review aimed to consolidate existing research findings to elucidate the association between tobacco smoking and TMD pain intensity. METHODS: A comprehensive search of electronic databases was conducted to identify relevant studies published up to June 2023. Studies investigating the relationship between tobacco smoking and TMD pain were included. Data extraction was conducted by two reviewers. Quality assessment was performed using the New Castle-Ottawa scale. Review Manager 5.4 was used to quantitatively analyse the results. RESULTS: The review included four studies employing similar TMD assessment techniques. All studies reported elevated TMD pain intensity among tobacco users, with non-smokers exhibiting lower pain intensity. The quality of the included studies was good. Meta-analytic results showed that TMD pain intensity was higher in the smokers group compared to the non-smokers group, with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.65 (BPM) (95% CI: [0.10, 1.19], p = .02). CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides a comprehensive synthesis of the existing literature on tobacco smoking and TMD symptoms. The findings underscore the multifaceted nature of the relationship between smoking and TMD pain, highlighting its clinical relevance and the need for tailored interventions. Further research is warranted to elucidate underlying mechanisms and potential moderating factors, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of this complex association.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".