The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 137, No 8, 1099-1107.
© 2006 American Dental Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Truelove, E.
Right arrow Articles by Dworkin, S. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Truelove, E.
Right arrow Articles by Dworkin, S. F.
Related Collections
Right arrow Endodontics

COVER STORY

JADA Continuing Education

The efficacy of traditional, low-cost and nonsplint therapies for temporomandibular disorder

A randomized controlled trial



Edmond Truelove, DDS, MSD, Kimberly Hanson Huggins, RDH, BS, Lloyd Mancl, PhD and Samuel F. Dworkin, DDS, PhD

Background. Treatment recommendations for patients with painful temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) range from conservative treatments such as physiotherapy to aggressive and irreversible treatments such as restorative reconstruction and joint surgery.

Methods. The authors randomized 200 subjects diagnosed with TMD into three groups: usual conservative, dentist-prescribed self-care treatment without any intraoral splint appliance (UT); UT plus a conventional flat-plane hard acrylic splint (HS); and UT plus a soft vinyl (a low-cost athletic mouth guard) splint (SS). Subjects completed questionnaires and clinical examinations at three, six and 12 months.

Results. The authors observed no significant differences among the groups in TMD-related pain levels or other common signs and symptoms of TMD at baseline (BL) or at any follow-up. The changes from BL were comparable for all three groups. The authors did not note any significant differences at any follow-up for compliance with study protocols or for occurrences of adverse effects from either splint type. For HS versus SS, there were significant differences in rates of splint use, but these differences were not accompanied by differences in either self-reported symptoms or in clinical findings.

Conclusions. All patients improved over time, and traditional splint therapy offered no benefit over the SS splint therapy. Neither splint therapy provided a greater benefit than did self-care treatment without splint therapy.

Clinical Implications. These findings suggest that clinicians who treat patients with TMD should consider prescribing low-cost nonsplint self-care therapy for most patients.

Key Words: Temporomandibular disorders; myofascial pain; occlusal splint







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-2006 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.