A Comparative Analysis Between Soft Tissue Manipulation and Pharmacotherapy in TMJ Myofascial Dysfunction Management: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Myofascial pain dysfunction syndrome (MPDS) is a common musculoskeletal non-inflammatory disorder affecting the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) characterized by localized pain and restricted mouth opening. Patients with MPDS typically consult a dentist and are prescribed pharmacotherapy, which has associated side effects. Soft tissue manipulation is a safer and effective alternative to pharmacotherapy for MPDS. However, comparative studies are lacking between pharmacotherapy and manual therapy approaches. Purpose: To determine and compare the effectiveness of soft tissue manipulation versus pharmacotherapy in the management of MPDS affecting TMJ. Setting: Dental and physiotherapy outpatient department settings of a tertiary care hospital. Participants: Individuals between 18 and 55 years of age presenting with pain on palpation of TMJ, restricted mouth opening, and intermittent clicking of joints. Research Design: Single blinded randomized controlled trial. Intervention: Thirty-four individuals were included and randomized into two groups. Seventeen individuals in the experimental group received soft tissue manipulation techniques such as massage and myofascial release (MFR) for facial muscles. The intervention was given by a qualified and trained physiotherapist who executed five hands-on sessions every other day over 10 days. Seventeen individuals in the control group were prescribed muscle relaxants with analgesics. The referring/consulting dentist prescribed medication for 7 days. Main Outcome Measures: In both groups, the patients were analyzed pre-and post-intervention using the following outcome measures: Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Chronic Graded Pain Version (CGPV) 2.0, maximum mouth opening (MMO), and TMJ Disability Index (TMI). Results: A statistically significant difference was observed in both groups for pain, CGPV2.0, MMO, and TMI with p = 0.001. An intergroup comparison showed no significant difference between the two groups in terms of pain (p = 0.066); however, a significant difference was noted in CGPV2.0, MMO, and TMI with p = 0.001, with the soft tissue manipulation group being superior to the pharmacotherapy group. Conclusions: Soft tissue manipulation was more effective in alleviating pain, improving mouth opening, and reducing disability in patients with MPDS of TMJ. Further, pharmacotherapy only showed an effect on pain reduction with no increase in mouth opening.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".