Comparison of Trigger Point Lidocaine Injection and Stabilization Splint Use in Myofascial Orofacial Pain Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to compare the short-, medium-, and long-term efficacy of trigger point local anesthetic injection and stabilization splint use for myofascial orofacial pain. Materials and methods: Group 1 comprised 15 patients who received trigger point local anesthetic injections (LAI), while Group 2 comprised 15 patients who were treated with a stabilization splint (SS). Analysis of pain-free maximum mouth opening (MMO) measurements, jaw disability checklists (JDC), short-form McGill pain questionnaires (SF-MPQ), and Visual analog scales (VAS) were used for comparison between the groups. Results: The LAI group showed a significantly greater increase in pain-free MMO in all terms (p < 0.001) and had significantly lower values on the JDC in both the medium (p = 0.026) and the long term (p = 0.006). The SF-MPQ was significantly lower in the medium term (p = 0.001) in the LAI group; the VAS showed a significantly greater decrease in the short (p = 0.016) and medium terms (p < 0.001) in the LAI group. Conclusion: The results indicate that a treatment choice can be made between TN lidocaine injection and occlusal splint based on patient tolerance.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".