↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Stabilisation splint therapy for temporomandibular pain dysfunction syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
216 Mendeley
Title
Stabilisation splint therapy for temporomandibular pain dysfunction syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002778.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

M Ziad Al‐Ani, Stephen J Davies, Robin JM Gray, Philip Sloan, Anne‐Marie Glenny

Abstract

Pain dysfunction syndrome (PDS) is the most common temporomandibular disorder (TMD). There are many synonyms for this condition including facial arthromyalgia, TMJ dysfunction syndrome, myofacial pain dysfunction syndrome, craniomandibular dysfunction and myofacial pain dysfunction. The aetiology of PDS is multifactorial and many different therapies have been advocated. To establish the effectiveness of stabilisation splint therapy in reducing symptoms in patients with pain dysfunction syndrome. Electronic databases (including the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2003, Issue 2); MEDLINE (1966 to June 2001); EMBASE (1966 to June 2001)) were searched. Handsearching of relevant journals was undertaken and reference lists of included studies screened. Experts in the field were contacted to identify unpublished articles. There was no language restriction. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in which splint therapy was compared concurrently to no treatment, other occlusal appliances, or any other active intervention. Data extraction was carried out independently and in duplicate. Validity assessment of the included trials was carried out at the same time as data extraction. Discrepancies were discussed and a third review author consulted. The author of the primary study was contacted where necessary. The studies were grouped according to treatment type and duration of follow up. Twenty potentially relevant RCTs were identified. Eight trials were excluded leaving 12 RCTs for analysis. Stabilisation splint therapy was compared to: acupuncture, bite plates, biofeedback/stress management, visual feedback, relaxation, jaw exercises, non-occluding appliance and minimal/no treatment.There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in the effectiveness of stabilisation splint therapy (SS) in reducing symptoms in patients with pain dysfunction syndrome compared with other active treatments. There is weak evidence to suggest that the use of SS for the treatment of PDS may be beneficial for reducing pain severity, at rest and on palpation, when compared to no treatment. There is insufficient evidence either for or against the use of stabilisation splint therapy for the treatment of temporomandibular pain dysfunction syndrome. This review suggests the need for further, well conducted RCTs that pay attention to method of allocation, outcome assessment, large sample size, and enough duration of follow up. A standardisation of the outcomes of the treatment of PDS should be established in the RCTs .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 216 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 215 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 15%
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Unspecified 12 6%
Other 60 28%
Unknown 57 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 105 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 6%
Unspecified 12 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Physics and Astronomy 3 1%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 64 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2021.
All research outputs
#7,033,326
of 25,382,360 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,533
of 12,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,536
of 398,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#194
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 398,057 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.