The effectiveness of aerobic exercise compared to other types of treatment on pain and disability in patients with orofacial pain: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compile and synthesise the evidence regarding the effectiveness of aerobic exercise (AE) compared with other treatments to reduce pain and disability of individuals with orofacial pain (OFP). METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted on five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Scopus). Randomised controlled trials (RCT) or controlled trials including adults of both sexes with painful OFP diagnoses were targeted. The intervention of interest was AE (e.g., walking, cycling, running, among others), compared to any other conservative and non-conservative therapy. The primary outcome was pain intensity. The risk of bias (RoB) was determined using a compiled set of items and the Cochrane RoB-2 tools. The overall certainty of the evidence was evaluated with the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Out of 4.669 records screened, four manuscripts were included. However, three of them used the same population but presented different outcomes. These studies included subjects with headache associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and general TMD. Both studies used aerobic exercise (AE) as the intervention of interest. Manual therapy (MT) plus exercise (Ex) (strengthening exercise (Str ex) or general exercises) were used as a comparison group. The combined treatment, including a multimodal therapy (AE + MT + Str ex), was superior to MT + Ex (MD: -8.65 points [95% CI -13.73, -3.57]) on pain intensity (orofacial pain [OFP] and headache intensity) at the end of the treatment and also after 12-week follow-up (MD: -9.43 points [95% CI -14.97, -3.89]). Also, the combination of three treatment modalities (AE + MT + Ex) was better on quality of life than AE alone (MD: -14.60 points [95% CI -16.74, -12.46]) and MT + Ex (MD: -12.30 point [95% CI -14.50, -10.10]) at the end of the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Aerobic exercise plus MT and general exercises achieved the greatest positive effects on pain and other outcomes in the short/medium term in patients with OFP. However, the scientific evidence supporting the isolated effects of AE for OFP is limited, indicating the need for more studies. Further studies are also needed to elaborate guidelines when using AE for individuals with OFP.
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 | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".