Effectiveness of manual therapy and exercise therapy on otological symptoms of individuals with temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effectiveness of manual therapy and exercise therapy on otological symptoms in individuals with temporomandibular disorders. METHODS: A systematic review of clinical trials compared exercise and manual therapy with standard care or placebo/control for individuals with temporomandibular disorders. Otological-related symptoms (tinnitus, earache, ear fullness, vertigo, dizziness, and hypo/hyperacusis) were assessed. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Qualitative data synthesis was performed through evidence tables and graphs. RESULTS: A total of 4,356 articles were screened, and six studies reported in nine manuscripts were included. Manual therapy combined with exercises targeted to the neck and jaw reduced tinnitus severity and tinnitus-related quality of life after treatment, and at three- and six-month follow-up when compared to exercises alone. Earache and ear fullness improved after orofacial myofunctional therapy and oral motor exercises compared to no treatment. The overall certainty of the evidence was rated as very low. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of neck and jaw exercises with manual therapy potentially reduce otological symptoms in individuals with temporomandibular disorders. Studies with higher methodological quality are needed, due to a very low certainty of evidence. Implications for rehabilitationExercises and manual therapy techniques aimed at the jaw and neck potentially improve otological symptoms related to TMD;Clinicians and researchers should design TMD interventions considering otological symptoms as an important complaint while planning the protocols,A standardization of the tools used to assess otological symptoms is needed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".