{"title":"Anterior Repositioning Splints in the Management of Temporomandibular Disc Displacement: A Network Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Rüştü Ersoy Sakarya, Osayd Alawawda, Ummuhan Caglayan Akbulak","doi":"10.1111/joor.70334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anterior repositioning splints (ARS) are widely used for disc displacement with reduction, but their comparative effectiveness against other conservative and minimally invasive treatments remains unquantified within a network meta-analytic framework.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study is to compare ARS with other treatment modalities for improving maximum mouth opening (MMO) and reducing pain in disc displacement with reduction using network meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twelve randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria: seven reported MMO, eight reported pain. Mean difference (MD) was the effect measure for both outcomes. Bayesian network meta-analysis ranked treatments using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). A sensitivity analysis excluding a study with an implausibly narrow standard deviation tested the robustness of the pain ranking.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For MMO (10 treatments), arthrocentesis ranked highest (SUCRA 76.2%) and ARS ranked eighth (38.3%); no comparison against ARS reached statistical significance (arthrocentesis vs. ARS: MD 6.78, 95% CrI 17.57 to 4.01). For pain (12 treatments), stabilization splint ranked highest (SUCRA 77.7%), followed by ARS (65.9%); untreated control ranked lowest (11.1%). ARS did not differ from stabilization splint (MD 0.69, 95% CrI 0.64 to 2.02) but exceeded untreated control (MD 4.60, 95% CrI 2.01 to 7.19). Sensitivity analysis did not alter rankings; certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate, with no comparison reaching high certainty.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ARS was not the most effective treatment for MMO, and for pain it outperformed untreated control but not stabilization splint, which held the highest SUCRA ranking. ARS is therefore not the preferred first-line treatment over stabilization splint.</p>","PeriodicalId":16605,"journal":{"name":"Journal of oral rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of oral rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.70334","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Anterior repositioning splints (ARS) are widely used for disc displacement with reduction, but their comparative effectiveness against other conservative and minimally invasive treatments remains unquantified within a network meta-analytic framework.
Objective: The objective of this study is to compare ARS with other treatment modalities for improving maximum mouth opening (MMO) and reducing pain in disc displacement with reduction using network meta-analysis.
Methods: Twelve randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria: seven reported MMO, eight reported pain. Mean difference (MD) was the effect measure for both outcomes. Bayesian network meta-analysis ranked treatments using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). A sensitivity analysis excluding a study with an implausibly narrow standard deviation tested the robustness of the pain ranking.
Results: For MMO (10 treatments), arthrocentesis ranked highest (SUCRA 76.2%) and ARS ranked eighth (38.3%); no comparison against ARS reached statistical significance (arthrocentesis vs. ARS: MD 6.78, 95% CrI 17.57 to 4.01). For pain (12 treatments), stabilization splint ranked highest (SUCRA 77.7%), followed by ARS (65.9%); untreated control ranked lowest (11.1%). ARS did not differ from stabilization splint (MD 0.69, 95% CrI 0.64 to 2.02) but exceeded untreated control (MD 4.60, 95% CrI 2.01 to 7.19). Sensitivity analysis did not alter rankings; certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate, with no comparison reaching high certainty.
Conclusion: ARS was not the most effective treatment for MMO, and for pain it outperformed untreated control but not stabilization splint, which held the highest SUCRA ranking. ARS is therefore not the preferred first-line treatment over stabilization splint.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation aims to be the most prestigious journal of dental research within all aspects of oral rehabilitation and applied oral physiology. It covers all diagnostic and clinical management aspects necessary to re-establish a subjective and objective harmonious oral function.
Oral rehabilitation may become necessary as a result of developmental or acquired disturbances in the orofacial region, orofacial traumas, or a variety of dental and oral diseases (primarily dental caries and periodontal diseases) and orofacial pain conditions. As such, oral rehabilitation in the twenty-first century is a matter of skilful diagnosis and minimal, appropriate intervention, the nature of which is intimately linked to a profound knowledge of oral physiology, oral biology, and dental and oral pathology.
The scientific content of the journal therefore strives to reflect the best of evidence-based clinical dentistry. Modern clinical management should be based on solid scientific evidence gathered about diagnostic procedures and the properties and efficacy of the chosen intervention (e.g. material science, biological, toxicological, pharmacological or psychological aspects). The content of the journal also reflects documentation of the possible side-effects of rehabilitation, and includes prognostic perspectives of the treatment modalities chosen.