Effectiveness of manual therapy based on the fascial distortion model in patients with temporomandibular disorder: A pilot study of randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To investigate the efficacy of Manual Therapy Based on the Fascial Distortion Model (FDM) by comparing it with Core Stabilization Training (CST) or Non-Interventional Control in individuals with temporomandibular disorders. Method: This is a preliminary study of a randomized, controlled, three-armed, multicentered clinical trial (NCT06134310). Permuted Block Randomization was used. The study included patients aged 18 to 64 with chronic temporomandibular disorders. A total of 29 patients participated at Hacettepe University and Karabük University following diagnosis by specialist dentists according to the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. The interventional groups were given eight-week FDM or CST once a week in addition to conventional therapy (Rocabado’s 6x6 Home Exercises and Patient Education), while the control group received no treatment. Different types of pain intensity for temporomandibular and cervical regions were assessed using the Revised Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS-R), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ-SF), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Head posture was assessed over Eye-Tragus-Horizontal Angle, Pogonion-Tragus-C7 Angle, Tragus-C7-Horizontal Angle, Tragus-C7-Shoulder Angle and Shoulder-C7-Horizontal Angle. Temporomandibular joint range of motions (ROMs) was measured over pain-free opening, maximum opening, assisted opening, laterotrusions, and protrusion using a digital vernier caliper. Dysfunction, disability, quality of life, and temporomandibular severity were assessed by the Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CPDI), Cognitive Exercise Therapy Approach-Biopsychosocial Questionnaire (BETY-BQ), and FonsecaAnamnestic Index (FAI), respectively. All outcomes were measured at baseline and 8th week, and pain intensity was additionally measured at the 2nd, 4th, and 6th weeks. Analyzes were carried out following the intention to treat principle. Results: Group-by-time interaction effect was found significant at right laterotrusion (F=5.3318, p=.018), left laterotrusion (F=6.071, p=.011), GCPS-R (X²=3.23e+7, p<.001), NPRS (X²=20.4640, p=.009), VAS (F=2.533, p=.016), MPQ-SF (F=2.1509, p=.040), and MFIQ (χ²= 3.09e+8, p<.001). Head posture, other ROMs, FAI, CPDI, and BETY-BQ, did not demonstrate a significant group-by-time interaction effect. Conclusion and Recommendations: FDM improved range of motion or pain. Patients responded to the treatments well, and drop-out rates were acceptable. A study on FDM/CST in patients with temporomandibular disorders was feasible. More patients are required for future studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".