Adjuvant effects of the fascial distortion model in patients with temporomandibular disorders: A multi-centered randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the effects of the fascial distortion model with the Pilates method or control in patients with temporomandibular disorders. The intervention groups received one of these two methods in addition to the conventional home program (patient education and Rocabado's 6x6 home exercises), while the control group did not receive any treatment. Fifty-four patients (eighteen per group) were recruited for eight weeks. Pain intensity was measured with the revised graded chronic pain scale, shortform McGill pain questionnaire, visual analog scale, and numerical pain rating scale. Head posture was assessed by photogrammetry. Maximum pain-free mouth opening, maximum possible mouth opening, maximum assisted mouth opening, laterotrusions, and protrusion were measured using a digital vernier caliper. Temporomandibular disorder severity, dysfunction, disability, and quality of life were assessed by the Fonseca anamnestic index, the mandibular function impairment questionnaire, the craniofacial pain and disability inventory, and the cognitive exercise therapy approach-biopsychosocial questionnaire, respectively. The group-by-time interaction effect was only statistically significant for right laterotrusion (F = 4.66, p = .012), left laterotrusion (F = 3.703, p = .034), pain intensity in the last week according to the numeric pain rating scale and the short-form McGill pain questionnaire (χ² = 2.84e+6, p < .001; F = 4.158, p < . 001; respectively), present pain intensity according to the visual analog scale and the index on the short-form McGill pain questionnaire (F = 5.078, p < .001; χ² = 29.74, p < .001; respectively), temporomandibular disorder severity (F = 3.38, p = .044), and disability in jaw functional status (F = 3.4721, p = .044). Once-per-week sessions of the fascial distortion model, combined with the conventional home program, clinically and/or statistically significantly improved maximum pain-free mouth opening, laterotrusions, present pain intensity, and pain intensity in the last week, temporomandibular disorder severity, dysfunction, and disability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".