Anterior Repositioning Splints in the Management of Temporomandibular Disc Displacement: A Network Meta-Analysis.

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Rüştü Ersoy Sakarya, Osayd Alawawda, Ummuhan Caglayan Akbulak
{"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.

前路复位夹板治疗颞下颌盘移位:网络荟萃分析。
背景:前路复位夹板(ARS)广泛用于椎间盘移位复位,但其与其他保守和微创治疗的比较效果在网络荟萃分析框架内仍未量化。目的:本研究的目的是通过网络meta分析比较ARS与其他治疗方式在改善最大开口(MMO)和减轻椎间盘移位的疼痛方面的效果。方法:12个随机对照试验符合纳入标准:7个报告MMO, 8个报告疼痛。平均差异(MD)是两种结果的效果度量。贝叶斯网络荟萃分析使用累积排序曲线(SUCRA)下的表面对处理进行排序。敏感度分析排除了具有难以置信的窄标准差的研究,测试了疼痛等级的稳健性。结果:在MMO(10次治疗)中,关节穿刺排在第一位(76.2%),ARS排在第八(38.3%);与ARS的比较无统计学意义(关节穿刺与ARS: MD为6.78,95% CrI为17.57至4.01)。对于疼痛(12种治疗),稳定夹板排名最高(SUCRA 77.7%),其次是ARS (65.9%);未经治疗的对照组排名最低(11.1%)。ARS与固定夹板无差异(MD = 0.69, 95% CrI = 0.64 ~ 2.02),但超过未经治疗的对照组(MD = 4.60, 95% CrI = 2.01 ~ 7.19)。敏感性分析没有改变排名;证据的确定性从非常低到中等,没有比较达到高确定性。结论:ARS不是治疗MMO最有效的方法,治疗疼痛优于未治疗的对照组,但不优于稳定夹板,后者的SUCRA排名最高。因此,与稳定夹板相比,ARS不是首选的一线治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of oral rehabilitation
Journal of oral rehabilitation 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
10.30%
发文量
116
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书