Exercise based multisite pain management in temporomandibular dysfunction and chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and chronic low back pain (CLBP) frequently coexist, with CLBP reported in 29% of TMDs cases. This co-occurrence emphasizes the importance of multisite pain management approaches. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of Rocabado's exercises alone or combined with structured back exercises on TMD-related pain, mandibular range of motion (ROM), and CLBP severity. METHODS: Forty participants with myogenic TMD and nonspecific CLBP were randomly assigned to a control group (CG, Rocabado only) or complex exercise group (CEG, Rocabado + back exercises). Both underwent 24 supervised sessions over six weeks. Pain was assessed via the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS-2.0), Short Form-McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Jaw function and ROM were evaluated using the Jaw Functional Limitation Scale (JFLS-20) and objective mandibular movement measures. Oral health-related quality of life was assessed via the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14). RESULTS: < .001, d > 0.8). CONCLUSION: Rocabado's exercises reduced TMDs pain and improved jaw function, while structured back exercises provided additional benefits for the pain severity of CLBP and sensory pain of TMDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial approval was obtained at https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/, and the registration status was made publicly available with the number NCT06343155 on April 1, 2024. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06343155).
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 | 0.042 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".