Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in Temporomandibular Disorder Patients and Healthy Subjects—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) signs and symptoms affect the quality of life of patients because they impose an incapacity to participate in daily life activities, causing both physical and psychological discomfort. This review aims to provide the most accurate, comprehensive, and up-to-date description of all information available regarding OHRQoL in TMD. (2) Methods: A systematic search of articles from January 2013 till August 2023 was performed on five databases to identify articles, including TMD and oral health-related quality of life. Two calibrated reviewers performed the search following inclusion and exclusion criteria. A manual search of reference articles was also performed. The data were analyzed qualitatively by combining a meta-analysis and GRADE evidence. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale for cross-sectional and case-control studies was utilized to assess the quality of the included studies. (3) Results: The initial search consisted of 738 articles without the removal of duplicates. Fifteen articles were included in this systematic review, and ten were included in the meta-analysis. Almost all the included observational studies reported poor OHRQoL among patients with different types of TMD. The results of the meta-analysis with a standard mean difference (SMD) and that included seven studies suggest high heterogeneity with I2 = 99%, SMD (95% CI) = 3.18 (1.90, 4.46), p-value < 0.01. The odds ratio analyzed for three included articles in the meta-analysis reported statistical significance (p-value < 0.01) with OR = 8.21 (2.39, 28.25) and a heterogeneity of 86%. The certainty of evidence by GRADE resulted in a downgraded level of evidence, indicating that the OHRQoL of TMD patients may differ slightly from the healthy controls. (4) Conclusions: The impact of OHRQoL on the TMD was deemed to be significant. Overall, the OHRQoL is low for any type and intensity of pain among TMD patients and controls.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".