Masticatory Function in Individuals with Temporomandibular Dysfunction: A systematic review and pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review summarizes the scientific evidence and assesses the methodological quality of the original studies that analyzed masticatory function in adult subjects with Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD). Methods: The literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocol in PubMed, Cochrane Library, LILACS, EBSCO, Scielo, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. The methodological quality of each article was independently assessed by two researchers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Study Quality Assessment Scale. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the eligible articles that met these exact predefined requirements were independently read and assessed for their methodological quality by two researchers. Results: 22 articles were included in the qualitative analysis. The compound method for chewing allowed to identify those individuals with TMD present an increase in the number of mastication cycles, and duration, with a greater masticatory efficiency and a worse myofunctional performance. With electromyography (EMG), some studies have shown that TMD involves changes in the electrical intensity of the masticatory muscles and modification of the ability to coordinate muscle activation. Ten of the twenty-two articles included in this review showed high methodological quality and low risk of bias, and twelve have low methodological quality and increased risk of bias. Conclusion: The parameters analyzed with the compound technique for chewing showed altered mandibular functions in individuals with TMD. With the EMG method, it was possible to suggest that TMD in adult individuals causes compensatory muscle behaviors and Several differences in changes in the masticatory function were found.
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 | 0.017 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".