Abstract
This study aimed at providing an answer to two clinical questions related to patients with masticatory muscle pain: 1) Does the use of a full-coverage hard acrylic occlusal appliance (stabilization splint) lead to a significant decrease of symptoms? and 2) Is the treatment success achieved with a stabilization splint more pronounced than the success attained with other forms of treatment (including placebo treatment) or no treatment? A systematic search was carried out in different electronic databases, supplemented by handsearch in four selected dental journals and by examination of the bibliographies of the retrieved articles. Thirteen publications, representing nine controlled clinical studies, could be identified. Reporting quality of most studies as assessed with the Jadad score ranged from 1 to 5. Based on the currently best available evidence it appears that most patients with masticatory muscle pain are helped by the incorporation of a stabilization splint. Nevertheless, evidence is equivocal if improvement of pain symptoms after incorporation of the intraoral appliance is caused by a specific effect of the appliance. A stabilization splint does not appear to yield a better clinical outcome than a soft splint, a non-occluding palatal splint, physical therapy, or body acupuncture. The scarcity of current external evidence emphasizes the need for more and better clinical research.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Muscle pain has been known for some time to be the leading cause of discomfort in the head and neck area [5], and masticatory muscle pain (myofascial pain) is the most common diagnosis among the various conditions encompassed by the term temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) [58, 81]. For about 40 years [76], stabilization splints have been one of the preferred modalities in the management of TMDs [72], although a great variety of other treatments are currently in use among clinicians [3, 96].
In the early 1990s, David Sackett and his colleagues from McMaster University, Hamilton (Ontario, Canada), introduced the concept of evidence-based medicine (EBM), “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients” [82]. The practice of EBM relies on three equally important elements: the best research evidence from a systematic search of the literature (mostly from patient-centered clinical research), individual clinical expertise (clinical skills and past experience), and patient values (preferences, concerns, expectations) [83]. The application of EBM comprises several steps: formulation of an important and answerable clinical question derived from a clinical problem; selection of the most appropriate information source(s) and the most appropriate search strategy; and appraisal and application of the evidence found. In many editorials and articles, the introduction of EBM into dentistry has been encouraged. However, the incorporation of EBM into clinical decision-making depends heavily on the availability of external clinical evidence.
Over the past two decades, a few reviews about the effect of occlusal appliances for the management of TMDs have been published (e.g., [2, 10, 11, 30, 31, 52]). In these publications, however, no distinction among specific TMD diagnoses such as masticatory muscle pain was made. The present paper, therefore, focuses on the most common clinical scenario in the management of TMDs by dentists: the management of a patient, who suffers from pain in the masticatory muscles, with a bite splint. Specifically, by systematically searching the literature, we want to provide an answer to the following two clinical questions. In patients with masticatory muscle pain:
-
1.
Does the use of a full-coverage hard acrylic occlusal appliance (stabilization splint, Michigan splint) lead to a significant decrease of symptoms?
-
2.
Is symptom improvement achieved with a stabilization splint more pronounced than the success attained with other forms of management (including placebo treatment) or no treatment?
Considering the great number of patients suffering from myofascial face pain, an answer to our questions would be of considerable clinical relevance.
Methods
To identify all relevant articles and dental congress abstracts of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), in which stabilization splint therapy was used and compared to no therapy or concurrent treatments, the following information sources and search strategies were used:
Search in electronic databases
-
Ovid Medline (online database). The subject terms included in the search as well as the search strategy are listed in Table 1.
-
Cochrane Library (online database). The search term was “splint.”
-
ISI Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded) (online database). The option “Full Search” was chosen. The keywords included in the search were “bite splint,” “occlusal appliance,” “occlusal splint” and “splint.”
-
Japana Centra Revuo Medicina (CD-ROM). The search in this database was carried out in a similar way as in Medline.
The following Japanese terms were used:
-
Randomized controlled trials: Musakui taisyo shiken, Musakui hikaku shiken
-
Clinical trials: Rinsyo shiken
-
Random allocation: Randamu waritsuke
-
Double-blind method: Nijuu mouken shiken
-
Controlled clinical trials: Hikaku rinsho shiken, Hikaku taisho rinsho shiken
-
Myofascial pain dysfunction (MPD) syndrome: Kinmaku totsuu kinoushogai shoukougun, MPD shoukougun
-
Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction syndrome: Gaku-kansetsusho, Gaku-kinouijo, Gaku-kinoushogai, Tougai kagakushogai
-
Masticatory muscle: Soshaku-kin
-
Myofascial pain syndrome: Kinmaku-totsuu shoukougun, Kinmakutsuu shoukougun
-
Pain: Totsuu
-
Bite splint: Baito supurinto, Baito purein, Kougou kyojo
-
Occlusal appliance: Okuruuzaru apuraiansu
-
Occlusal splint: Okuruuzaru supurinto
-
Splint: Supurinto
-
Handsearch in selected journals
The most important, peer-reviewed journals of Austria, France, and Germany, which are currently not included in Medline, namely Actualités odonto-stomatologiques (Medline listing discontinued in 1991), Stomatologie (formerly—until 1996—Zeitschrift für Stomatologie; discontinued in Medline in 1990), and Deutsche Zahnärztliche Zeitschrift (listing in Medline discontinued in 1992), were handsearched through December 2003.
In addition, the abstracts published in the special issues of the Journal of Dental Research, which relate to the annual General Session and Exhibition of the International Association for Dental Reseach (IADR), were reviewed for the years 1990–2003.
Bibliography search of the identified publications and reviews
The references listed in the relevant articles were perused to identify additional publications pertinent to our clinical question. In addition, the reference lists of relevant review articles were checked.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
Only trials in which patients had explicitly been diagnosed with masticatory muscle (myofascial) pain were considered. Studies in which additional diagnoses were allowed (e.g., TMJ arthralgia/osteoarthritis; disk interference disorders), were excluded from further analysis. Similarly, articles in which unspecific terminology was used to characterize the investigated patient samples (e.g., “mandibular dysfunction”, “[TMJ] pain dysfunction syndrome” or “temporomandibular disorders”) were not considered because these terms may also include TMJ-related conditions.
There were neither age restrictions of study participants nor language restrictions for inclusion. The last update of the search was made on 11 December 2003.
Assessment of reporting quality
The reporting quality of the identified articles of RCTs was assessed independently by two reviewers (J.C.T, A.H.). For this purpose, the quality score developed by Jadad et al. [46] was used. The Jadad scale consists of five items which focus on three dimensions of internal validity (randomization; double blinding; description of withdrawals and drop-outs). Uncertainties on data interpretation and discrepancies in scoring the reporting quality were resolved by discussion between the two reviewers.
Results
Altogether, 13 relevant publications, representing nine clinical studies, were identified by the two reviewers. The articles of six studies were published in English, the rest in Dutch [98], German [86], and Japanese [84]. Two studies were carried out in Sweden, two in the USA, one in Canada, one in Germany, one in Italy, one in Japan, and one in the Netherlands. Only two trials [91, 98] were conducted over an observation period of at least 1 year.
The results of the search in Ovid Medline are displayed in Table 1. Seven articles listed in this database are relevant to our question [7, 17, 28, 47, 80, 86, 98].
The search in the Japanese database yielded one hit [84]. The searches in the Cochrane Library and in ISI Web of Science identified no additional publications.
The handsearch in the special issues of the Journal of Dental Research yielded five meeting abstracts [42, 43, 44, 90, 91]. All five abstracts referred to the same prospective trial. In the following, only the two most recently published abstracts, which complement each other, are considered [44, 91].
The bibliography search of the identified publications identified no additional publication. (In one article [78], a paper from an Argentinean dental journal was cited [79] in which it was allegedly reported “that splint therapy associated with diazepam, in this order, produced more effective TMD pain relief when these therapies were applied exclusively.” In the cited article by Roldan et al. [79], however, bite splints were not mentioned.)
The major characteristics (patients, inclusion and exclusion criteria, treatment groups, number of participants, study duration, outcome variables for treatment success) and findings (improvement of signs and symptoms, authors’ conclusions, reviewers’ comments) of the publications are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. In all but one study [86], stabilization splints were fabricated in the maxilla. Masticatory muscle pain was an outcome variable in every study. In all but two trials [7, 17], functional parameters such as mandibular mobility and TMJ sounds were also considered. In three articles [28, 47, 86], Helkimo’s Clinical Dysfunction Index (CDI) [38] was used.
The methodology of the clinical investigations differed in several important aspects:
-
1.
Recruitment of study participants: in all but two trials, study participants were restricted to patients seeking care at or referred to clinical centers specialized for the diagnosis and management of orofacial pain. In the remaining two studies, participants were exclusively [80] or partly [17] recruited by notices in local newspapers or journals.
-
2.
Number of participants: the number of participants included in most studies was small. The total number of participants lay between 26 [86] and 168 individuals [91] (Table 2).
-
3.
Description of randomization/blinding: the method of randomization was described only in two publications [28, 86]. Five studies [17, 28, 47, 80, 98] used a blinded design: the examiner who evaluated the treatment was blind to the type of treatment the patient received. Lack of (double-)blinding leads to an overestimation of the treatment effect [85]. (It is controversial whether or not double-blinding is possible in trials comparing active and “placebo” appliances.) The publication by Ekberg et al. [28] is the only one with an appropriate description of both randomization and blinding, and with a Jadad score of 5 (Table 4). (It has to be considered that the reported information about the randomized studies of Huggins/Truelove et al. [44, 91] as well as Sakuma et al. [84] was limited in the available meeting abstracts.)
-
4.
Appliance use: in three trials [17, 80, 86], the appliance was worn (nearly) 24 h/day. In four other studies, the splint was worn only at night [7, 28, 47, 98]. In the published meeting abstracts [44, 84, 91], no pertinent information was given.
-
5.
Treatment provided in the control group(s): Michigan splints were compared with the following alternative approaches:
In one study [80], physical therapy and verbal support were given to each patient included in the trial.
Based on the results described in the identified publications, our two clinical questions can be answered as follows:
-
1.
Management of myofascial face pain with a stabilization splint worn at night is likely to lead to a statistically significant short-term improvement when compared with no treatment [47].
-
2.
Current evidence is inconclusive about the question of whether the observed improvement during and after stabilization therapy is greater than the one achieved by a non-occluding palatal appliance (i.e., a “placebo” splint ). In two recently conducted trials [28, 84], there was a statistically more significant decrease of pain and functional impairment in the group that received a stabilization splint. In two other studies of somewhat lower reporting quality and validity as compared to the trial by Ekberg et al. [28] (see Discussion), no statistically significant difference could be found between the two types of appliances [17, 80].
-
3.
A stabilization appliance does not appear to yield a better clinical outcome than a soft splint [44, 91].
-
4.
There is some evidence from one study with a small number of patients that with a (mandibular) stabilization appliance a statistically significant greater symptom improvement can be achieved than with an anteriorly occluding maxillary splint (“relaxing appliance”) [86].
-
5.
Evidence is missing that treatment with a stabilization appliance leads to a statistically significant greater improvement of signs and symptoms than body acupuncture [47], physical therapy [98] and occlusal adjustment [98].
Discussion
The present investigation has focused on the effect of hard acrylic stabilization splints on pain located in the masticatory muscles. Our review is the first one that has looked specifically into this question. The available data indicate—at different levels of scientific evidence—that a hard acrylic stabilization splint does not yield a better clinical outcome than a non-occluding palatal appliance, a soft splint, or conservative treatment without a splint such as physical therapy and acupuncture. In the only controlled clinical study in which stabilization splints were compared with a partial-coverage anterior splint—a Sved appliance [88]—, there was a trend for greater symptom improvement in the stabilization splint group. This finding should be interpreted with caution, however, because the sample size was small [86]. In one study [98], occlusal adjustment was carried out. In a recently published systematic review, Koh and Robinson [51] came to the conclusion that there is an absence of evidence that this invasive procedure is an effective therapeutic measure. Therefore, the systematic selective adjustment of the occlusal surface of teeth is not recommended [31, 51, 93].
Within the hierarchy of scientific evidence, systematic reviews are considered to have the highest quality level. These types of publication are carried out to answer one or more focused clinical questions about a topic related to health care [50]. In systematic reviews, it is not always possible to quantitatively combine the data from the identified studies (meta-analysis) [24]. Among other reasons, this may be due to the lack of reported original data or to methodological differences applied in the trials. In that case, a qualitative rather than a quantitative systematic review is carried out [49].
Kalso et al. [49] have noted that the strength of evidence lies in the quality of controlled trials: “Systematic reviews can only be as convincing as the quality of the controlled trials allows.” The 13 pertinent publications to answer our clinical question represent nine (mostly short-term) RCTs of varying reporting quality and validity. We have included the meeting abstracts of the RCT by Huggins/Truelove et al. [44, 91] and Sakuma et al. [84], although these reports have not yet been substantiated by more detailed articles in peer-reviewed journals. Of the 13 publications, three [17, 47, 80] were considered in the qualitative systematic reviews on occlusal splints published by Forssell et al. in 1999 [31], Kreiner et al. in 2001 [52], and Al-Ani et al. in 2004 [2], respectively.
We had to exclude a great number of articles. The reasons for exclusion were:
-
1.
Study participants were not randomized (e.g., [8, 33, 36, 74]). Randomization is the most important procedure to avoid selection bias [48]. In general, non-randomized studies overestimate treatment effects [9].
-
2.
Patients with masticatory muscle pain and TMJ pain were included in a trial / no clear distinction was made between muscle pain and TMJ pain (e.g., [8, 15, 16, 18, 20, 32, 35, 40, 41, 55, 56, 57, 60, 70, 73, 74, 77, 92, 94, 101]). (Nonetheless, inclusion of the results gained in these studies would not have altered the conclusions of the present review.)
-
3.
The effect of stabilization splints was evaluated in patients with TMJ pain (e.g., [25, 26, 27]) or TMJ disk displacement (e.g., [54, 59]).
-
4.
The effect of splint therapy on the accuracy of mandibular movements of patients with masticatory muscle pain was studied (e.g., [64]).
-
5.
The effect of soft occlusal splints on masticatory muscle pain was investigated [102].
-
6.
Multiple simultaneous treatments were carried out (e.g., [14, 37, 39, 69, 78]).
-
7.
No control group was used (e.g., [4, 8, 36, 100]). Without controls, it cannot be excluded that unspecific effects, e.g., spontaneous remission, natural course of the symptoms, regression to the mean, the placebo effect, the Hawthorne effect, biased (favorable) patient’s answers, and accompanying therapeutic measures [95], may have been responsible for observed differences among groups.
When appraising articles on clinical studies in a qualitative systematic review, vote counting (determination of the number of articles showing that an intervention works or does not work) should be avoided [49]. Instead, more weight should be given to publications of (a) high reporting quality (i.e., Jadad score 3 to 5) and (b) high validity [49].
In our review, reporting quality of RCTs was assessed with the help of the Jadad score (range: 0–5). Among the many checklists, scales, and indexes that have been suggested for the evaluation of the (reporting) quality of randomized trials, the Jadad score was developed using standard scale development techniques [46]. Since it is the only known validated scale [6], it has been widely used by clinical researchers. Nonetheless, some critical voices have been raised lately alluding to the fact that the Jadad scale gives more weight to the quality of reporting than to actual methodological quality [49]. In addition, recent reports have pointed out that the inter-rater reliability of the Jadad score may be low [6, 12]. We have striven to avoid this latter problem by independent assessments of the identified articles and discussion between the two reviewers in case of inconsistencies of the scoring results. As Kalso et al. [49] point out, writing a qualitative systematic review requires at least two authors—it “is not a lonely (wo)man’s affair.”
Six of the nine studies considered had a Jadad scale score of 3 or more. In contrast, three studies had an unacceptably low reporting quality of 1 or 2. It has been shown that studies with a Jadad score of 2 or less tend to give an overoptimistic picture of the real treatment effect than studies with a higher score (e.g., [29]).
There are indications that the reporting quality of a published article does not always correlate with the actual methodological quality of the trial [45]. Deficits in reporting about the results of RCTs have been mentioned by authors in dentistry [65, 87] as well as in medicine [1, 6, 19, 34, 45, 75]. For example, only 25.4% of the articles of RCTs published in the journal Intensive Care Medicine up to the year 2000 had a Jadad score of 3 or more [53]. In our review, there is reason to believe that the methodological quality of the studies by Huggins/Truelove [44, 91] and Sakuma et al. [84], which were awarded 1 point, respectively, is much better than the actual Jadad score suggests.
As far as the assessment of the second quality factor—high validity—is concerned, two important criteria are a sufficient baseline pain intensity [66] and an adequate number of patients in each group [67]. In the identified trials, recruiting of study participants took place by either resorting to patients seeking care at or being referred to an orofacial pain care center, or by placing announcements in local print media [17, 80]. It should be taken into consideration, however, that patients seeking TMD treatment by referrals are probably different from individuals recruited by a notice in a local newspaper or journal [28]: Rubinoff et al. [80] argued in the critical discussion of their study published in 1987 that the latter patients “may have been biased toward milder conditions that were tolerable to the patient until prompted by a media notice.” This assumption appears to be correct. When the baseline pain intensities of the three studies published in peer-reviewed journals in which a stabilization appliance were compared with a non-occluding appliance are analyzed, the following can be observed:
-
a.
In the trial by Rubinoff et al. [80], the majority of the study participants had low pain before the start of the study. All patients were recruited by a newspaper notice.
-
b.
In the investigation by Dao et al. [17], pre-treatment pain intensities were about 40 mm, which is equivalent to moderate pain [13], on a visual analog scale (VAS). Part of the participants were recruited through announcements published in local journals; the other part were referred by dentists.
-
c.
In the study by Ekberg et al. [28], the pain intensity prior to the start of the study was between moderate and very severe. All patients were referred for and requested treatment.
Hence, differences in the recruitment of patients may be one reason for different pre-treatment pain levels and the different results achieved in the three studies. The three trials also differ considerably with regard to the included number of patients (cf. Table 2). The result from this comparison is that two studies with an acceptable reporting quality and a moderate validity [17, 80] found no difference between a stabilization appliance and a non-occluding appliance. These results differ from the recent study by Ekberg et al. [28] with both strong evidence and a strong validity supporting the efficacy of the Michigan splint compared with a palatal appliance.
Only two trials—those conducted by the Huggins/Truelove group [44, 91] and by van der Glas et al. [98], respectively—had an observation period of at least 1 year. In three studies [28, 47, 86], Helkimo’s CDI [38] was used. However, the validity of this index has been shown to be doubtful [99].
Our search has also demonstrated the inconsistencies that exist among different authors with regard to the diagnosis “muscle pain” (Table 2). This variability is reflected in the number of diagnostic systems that have been proposed over the past decades for classifying the different subsets of TMDs (c.f. [71]). It was not before 1992 that biologically plausible classifications with specific diagnostic categories became available [22, 89]. As a result, comparisons among the studies identified in this search are difficult to make, and pooling of data is impossible. As far as the evaluation of trials carried out in the 1970s and 1980s is concerned (c.f. [8, 36, 80]), study participants diagnosed with “myofascial pain dysfunction syndrome” are not necessarily patients suffering from myalgia only. Although masticatory muscle pain is a symptom encountered in most, albeit not all of these patients, symptoms such as limited mandibular opening, TMJ sounds, and deviation on jaw opening may be present. Only one of these older articles allowed an explicit assessment of the symptom “muscular pain” [8].
Furthermore, our investigation questions the strategy of relying exclusively on Medline when looking for evidence. Of the 13 pertinent articles, seven were identified by the Ovid Medline search. Conversely, the meeting abstracts found by handsearching were not listed in any of the consulted electronic databases. Hence, as our search demonstrated, important study results may be missed if one relies on Medline as the sole information source [1, 21, 97]. Besides, limitation of the search to the English language, as it is often seen in reviews, may lead to different conclusions (English language bias) [23, 63].
Another point that can be made is that keywords are likely to change depending on the prevailing thinking in the field. For example, whereas “temporomandibular disorders” is a term that was agreed upon by most clinicians in the early 1990s [62], Medline lists articles about this topic under the medical subject heading “Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction Syndrome.”
Conclusions
The dearth of adequate clinical studies that are available to answer our clinical question mirrors the lack of hard data in an important and frequent scenario in clinical dentistry. We found this result astonishing because full-coverage heat-cured (or self-curing) acrylic resin occlusal splints have been in use since the 1960s [76], and these devices have been recommended by many clinicians around the world for the management of patients with TMDs, including masticatory muscle pain [68]. Generally, the wealth of anecdotal reports and uncontrolled clinical observations tend to give a much more optimistic picture about the presumed effects of the stabilization splint therapy.
Due to the limited number of available studies, our clinical question can only be answered tentatively: based on the currently best available evidence it appears that most patients with masticatory muscle pain are helped by the incorporation of a stabilization splint. Nevertheless, evidence is equivocal that improvement of pain symptoms after incorporation of an intraoral appliance is caused by a specific effect of the splint [17, 28, 80]. In addition, there is not enough data about the long-term efficacy and effectiveness of these widely used therapeutic tools. It should be noted that a scarcity of prospective randomized controlled trials with high power does not discredit the concept or the applicability of EBM, because EBM is based on the best available evidence. However, by pointing out deficits in the quantity and quality of the evidence, EBM highlights the empirical nature of current management and emphasizes the need for more focused clinical research in dentistry.
References
Adetugbo K, Williams H (2000) How well are randomized controlled trials reported in the dermatology literature? Arch Dermatol 136:381–385
Al-Ani MZ, Davies SJ, Gray RJM, Sloan P, Glenny AM (2004) Stabilization splint therapy for temporomandibular pain dysfunction syndrome (Cochrane review). The Cochrane Library, issue 1. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK
Arbree NS, Campbell SD, Renner RP, Goldstein GR (1995) A survey of temporomandibular disorder conducted by the Greater New York Academy of Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 74:512–516
Baldissara S, Mascellani SC, Catapano S, Baldissara P (1998) Effetti a breve termine della placca di Michigan sul dolore muscolare ed articolare. Minerva Stomatol 47:235–238
Bell WE (1989) Orofacial pains. Classification, diagnosis, management, 4th edn. Year Book Medical Publishers, Chicago
Bhandari M, Richards RR, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH (2001) Quality in the reporting of randomized trials in surgery: is the Jadad scale reliable? Control Clin Trials 22:687–688
Cane L, Schieroni MP, Ribero G, Ferrero M, Carossa S (1997) Effectiveness of the Michigan splint in reducing functional cervical disturbances: a preliminary study. J Craniomand Pract 15:132–135
Carraro JJ, Caffesse RG (1978) Effect of occlusal splints on TMJ symptomatology. J Prosthet Dent 40:563–566
Carroll D, Tramèr M, McQuay H, Nye B, Moore A (1996) Randomization is important in studies with pain outcomes: systematic review of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in acute postoperative pain. Br J Anaesth 77:798–803
Clark GT (1984) A critical evaluation of orthopedic interocclusal appliance therapy: effectiveness for specific symptoms. J Am Dent Assoc 108:364–368
Clark GT (1984) A critical evaluation of orthopedic interocclusal appliance therapy: design, theory, and overall effectiveness. J Am Dent Assoc 108:359–364
Clark HD, Wells GA, Huet C, McAlister FA, Salmi LR, Fergusson D, Laupacis A (1999) Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale. Control Clin Trials 20:448–452
Collins SL, Moore RA, McQuay HJ (1997) The visual analogue pain intensity scale: what is moderate pain in millimetres? Pain 72:95–97
Crockett DJ, Foreman ME, Alden L, Blasberg B (1986) A comparison of treatment modes in the management of myofascial pain dysfunction syndrome. Biofeedback Self Regul 11:279–291
Dahlström L, Haraldson T (1985) Bite plates and stabilization splints in mandibular dysfunction. A clinical and electromyographic comparison. Acta Odontol Scand 43:109–114
Dahlström L, Carlsson GE, Carlsson SG (1982) Comparison of effects of electromyographic biofeedback and occlusal splint therapy on mandibular dysfunction. Scand J Dent Res 90:151–156
Dao TTT, Lavigne GJ, Charbonneau A, Feine JS, Lund JP (1994) The efficacy of oral splints in the treatment of myofascial pain of the jaw muscles: a controlled clinical trial. Pain 56:85–94
Davies SJ, Gray RJ (1997) The pattern of splint usage in the management of two common temporomandibular disorders. Part II: The stabilisation splint in the treatment of pain dysfunction syndrome. Br Dent J 183:247–251
Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, Quan H, Guyatt GH (2002) The reporting of methodological factors in randomized controlled trials and the association with a journal policy to promote adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist. Control Clin Trials 23:380–388
di Paolo C, Panti F, Rampello A (1998) Studio retrospettivo sull’applicazione di splint occlusali di 312 pazienti affetti da disordini temporo-mandibolari. Minerva Stomatol 47:187–195
Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C (1994) Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. Br Med J 309:1286–1291
Dworkin SF, LeResche L (1992) Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders: review, criteria, examinations and specifications, critique. J Craniomandib Disord Facial Oral Pain 6:301–355
Egger M, Zellweger-Zähner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G (1997) Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 350:326–329
Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context, 2nd edn. BMJ Books, London
Ekberg E (1998) Treatment of temporomandibular disorders of arthrogeneous origin. Controlled double-blind studies of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and a stabilisation appliance. Swed Dent J Suppl 131:1–57
Ekberg E, Nilner M (1999) The influence of stabilisation appliance therapy and other factors on the treatment outcome in patients with temporomandibular disorders of arthrogeneous origin. Swed Dent J 23:39–47
Ekberg EC, Sabet ME, Petersson A, Nilner M (1998) Occlusal appliance therapy in a short-term perspective in patients with temporomandibular disorders correlated to condyle position. Int J Prosthod 11:263–268
Ekberg EC, Vallon D, Nilner M (2003) The efficacy of appliance therapy in patients with temporomandibular disorders of mainly myogenous origin. A randomized, controlled, short-term study. J Orofac Pain 17:133–139
Ezzo J, Berman B, Hadhazy VA, Jadad AR, Lao L, Singh BB (2000) Is acupuncture effective for the treatment of chronic pain? A systematic review. Pain 86:217–225
Forssell H, Kalso E (2004) Application of principles of evidence-based medicine to occlusal treatment for temporomandibular disorders: are there lessons to be learned? J Orofac Pain 18:9–22
Forssell H, Kalso E, Koskela P, Vehmanen R, Puukka P, Alanen P (1999) Occlusal treatments in temporomandibular disorders: a qualitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Pain 83:549–560
Frahn G, John M (1996) Schmerzen im orofazialen System—eine kontrollierte Studie mit Stabilisierungsschiene und Ultraschall. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 51:478–481
Gavish A, Winocur E, Ventura YS, Halachmi M, Gazit E (2002) Effect of stabilization splint therapy on pain during chewing in patients suffering from myofascial pain. J Oral Rehabil 29:1181–1186
Gluud C, Nikolova D (1998) Quality assessment of reports on clinical trials in the Journal of Hepatology. J Hepatol 29:321–327
Gray RJ, Davies SJ, Quayle AA, Wastell DG (1991) A comparison of two splints in the treatment of TMJ pain dysfunction syndrome. Can occlusal analysis be used to predict success of splint therapy? Br Dent J 170:55–58
Greene CS, Laskin DM (1972) Splint therapy for the myofascial pain-dysfunction (MPD) syndrome: a comparative study. J Am Dent Assoc 84:624–628
Greene CS, Laskin DM (1983) Long-term evaluation of treatment for myofascial pain-dysfunction syndrome: a comparative analysis. J Am Dent Assoc 107:235–238
Helkimo M (1974) Studies on function and dysfunction of the masticatory system. II. Index for anamnestic and clinical dysfunction and occlusal state. Swed Dent J 67:101–121
Helöe B, Heiberg AN (1980) A follow-up study of a group of female patients with myofascial pain-dysfunction syndrome. Acta Odontol Scand 38:129–134
Heuser MKH (1989) Vergleichende Untersuchung über die Behandlung des myofazialen Schmerzsyndroms mit Aufbißschienen, Neuraltherapie nach Huneke und Akupunktur. Quintessenz 40:531–542
Hijzen TH, Slangen JL, van Houweligen HC (1986) Subjective, clinical and EMG effects of biofeedback and splint treatment. J Oral Rehabil 13:529–539
Huggins KH, Truelove EL, Dworkin SF, LeResche L, Sommers E, Schubert M (1997) Randomized clinical trial (RCT) of a soft splint for TMD (Abstract 3005). J Dent Res (spec issue) 76:389
Huggins KH, Truelove EL, Dworkin SF, Mancl L, Sommers E, LeResche L (1998) Initial outcomes in RCT of splint for TMD: clinical findings (Abstract 152). J Dent Res (spec issue A) 77:112
Huggins KH, Truelove EL, Dworkin SF, Mancl L, Sommers E, LeResche L (1999) RCT for splints in TMD: clinical findings at 12 months (Abstract 1490). J Dent Res (spec issue) 78:292
Huwiler-Müntener K, Jüni P, Junker C, Egger M (2002) Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. J Am Med Assoc 287:2801–2804
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Controlled Clin Trials 17:1–12
Johansson A, Wenneberg B, Wagersten C, Haraldson T (1991) Acupuncture in treatment of facial muscular pain. Acta Odontol Scand 49:153–158
Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M (2001) Assessing the quality of randomised controlled trials. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (eds) Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context, 2nd edn. BMJ Books, London, pp 87–108
Kalso E, Edwards J, McQuay HJ, Moore RA (2002) Five easy pieces on evidence-based medicine (4). Eur J Pain 6:89–93
Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G (2003) Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine. Royal Society of Medicine Press, London
Koh H, Robinson PG (2003) Occlusal adjustment for treating and preventing temporomandibular joint disorders (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library, issue 1. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK
Kreiner M, Betancor E, Clark GT (2001) Occlusal stabilization appliances. Evidence of their efficacy. J Am Dent Assoc 132:770–777
Latronico N, Botteri M, Minelli C, Zanotti C, Bertolini G, Candiani A (2002) Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in the intensive care literature. A systematic analysis of papers published in Intensive Care Medicine over 26 years. Intensive Care Med 28:1316–1323
Linde C, Isacsson G, Jonsson BG (1995) Outcome of 6-week treatment with transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation compared with splint on symptomatic temporomandibular joint disk displacement without reduction. Acta Odontol Scand 53:92–98
List T, Helkimo M (1992) Acupuncture and occlusal splint therapy in the treatment of craniomandibular disorders. II. A 1-year follow-up study. Acta Odontol Scand 50:375–385
List T, Helkimo M, Andersson S, Carlsson GE (1992) Acupuncture and occlusal splint therapy in the treatment of craniomandibular disorders. Part I. A comparative study. Swed Dent J 16:125–141
List T, Helkimo M, Karlsson R (1993) Pressure pain thresholds in patients with craniomandibular disorders before and after treatment with acupuncture and occlusal splint therapy: a controlled clinical study. J Orofac Pain 7:275–282
List T, Dworkin SF (1996) Comparing TMD diagnoses and clinical findings at Swedish and US TMD centers using research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders. J Orofac Pain 10:240–253
Lundh H, Westesson PL, Eriksson L, Brooks SL (1992) Temporomandibular joint disk displacement without reduction. Treatment with flat occlusal splint versus no treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 73:655–658
Manns A, Miralles R, Santander H, Valdivia J (1983) Influence of the vertical dimension in the treatment of myofascial pain-dysfunction syndrome. J Prosthet Dent 50:700–709
Marbach JJ, Raphael KG (1996) Treatment of orofacial pain using evidence-based medicine: the case for intraoral appliances. In: Campbell JN (ed) Pain 1996—an updated review. IASP Press, Seattle, pp 413–422
McNeill C (1992) Panel discussion: definition of terms. In: McNeill C (ed) Current controversies in temporomandibular disorders. Quintessence, Chicago, pp 15–17
Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR, Jüni P, Klassen T, Le Lorier J, Liberati A, Linde K, Penna A (1996) Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet 347:363–366
Monteiro AA, Clark GT (1988) Mandibular movement feedback vs. occlusal appliances in the treatment of masticatory muscle dysfunction. J Craniomandib Disord 2:41–47
Montenegro R, Needleman I, Moles D, Tonetti M (2002) Quality of RCTs in periodontology—a systematic review. J Dent Res 81:866–870
Moore A, Collins S, Carroll D, McQuay H (1997) Paracetamol with and without codeine in acute pain: a quantitative systematic review. Pain 70:193–201
Moore RA, Gavaghan D, Tramer MR, Collins SL, McQuay HJ (1998) Size is everything—large amounts of information are needed to overcome random effects in estimating direction and magnitude of treatment effects. Pain 78:209–216
National Institutes of Health (1996) National Institutes of Health Technology Assessment Conference Statement: management of temporomandibular disorders. J Am Dent Assoc 127:1595–1603
Nel H (1978) Myofascial pain-dysfunction syndrome. J Prosthet Dent 40:438–441
Nemcovsky CE, Gazit E, Serfati V, Gross M (1992) A comparative study of three therapeutic modalities in a temporomandibular disorder (TMD) population. J Craniomand Pract 10:148–155
Ohrbach R, Stohler CS (1992) Review of the literature. A: Current diagnostic systems. J Craniomand Disord Facial Oral Pain 6:307–317
Okeson JP (ed) (1996) Orofacial pain. Guidelines for assessment, diagnosis, and management, 3rd edn. Quintessence, Chicago
Okeson JP, Moody PM, Kemper JT, Haley JV (1983) Evaluation of occlusal splint therapy and relaxation procedures in patients with temporomandibular disorders. J Am Dent Assoc 107:420–424
Pettengill CA, Growney MR, Schoff R, Kenworthy CR (1998) A pilot study comparing the efficacy of hard and soft stabilizing appliances in treating patients with temporomanibular disorders. J Prosthet Dent 79:165–168
Pienaar ED, Volmink J, Zwarenstein M, Swingler GH (2002) Randomised trials in the South African Medical Journal, 1948–1997. S Afr Med J 92:901–903
Ramfjord SP, Ash MM (1994) Reflections on the Michigan occlusal splint. J Oral Rehabil 21:491–500
Raphael KG, Marbach JJ (2001) Widespread pain and the effectiveness of oral splints in myofascial face pain. J Am Dent Assoc 132:305–316
Rizzatti-Barbosa CM, Martinelli DA, Ambrosano GM, de Albergaria-Barbosa JR (2003) Therapeutic response of benzodiazepine, orphenadrine citrate and occlusal splint association in TMD pain. J Craniomand Pract 21:116–120
Roldan OV, Maglione H, Carreira R, Mainieri S (1990) Piroxicam, diazepam y placebo en el tratamiento de las disfunciones de la articulación temporomandibular. Estudio doble ciego. Rev Asoc Odontol Argent 78:83–85
Rubinoff MS, Gross A, McCall WD Jr (1987) Conventional and nonoccluding splint therapy compared for patients with myofascial pain dysfunction syndrome. Gen Dent 35:502–506
Rudy T, Greco C, Turk D, Zaki H, Herlich A (1996) Empirically-derived RDC axis I classification of TMD patients (Abstract 1599). J Dent Res (spec issue) 75:217
Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB (1997) Evidence-based medicine. How to practice and teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone, New York
Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB (2000) Evidence-based medicine. How to practice and teach EBM, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh
Sakuma S, Ariji Y, Nakagawa M, Katsuse S, Suzuki J, Katsuno R, Nakamura H, Ko K, Takeuchi Y, Inugai Y, Noda K, Izumi M, Ogi M, Kurita K, Ariji E, Ito Y (2003) Therapy effect of splints for temporomandibular disorders RDC type I [in Japanese] (Abstract 2C4). J Jap Soc Temporomandib Joint 15:118
Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. J Am Med Assoc 273:408–412.
Siegert R, Gundlach KKH (1989) Stabilisationsschiene versus Entspannungsbehelf zur Behandlung myofazialer Schmerzen. Erste Ergebnisse einer prospektiv randomisierten Studie. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 44:S17–S19
Sjögren P, Halling A (2002) Quality of reporting randomised clinical trials in dental and medical research. Br Dent J 192:100–103
Sved A (1944) Changing the occlusal level and a new method of retention. Am J Orthod 30:527–535
Truelove EL, Sommers EE, LeResche L, Dworkin SF, Von Korff M (1992) Clinical diagnostic criteria for TMD. New classification permits multiple diagnoses. J Am Dent Assoc 123:47–54
Truelove EL, Huggins KH, Dworkin SF, Mancl L, Sommers E, LeResche L (1998) RCT splint treatment outcome in TMD: initial self report findings (Abstract 151). J Dent Res (spec issue A) 77:112
Truelove EL, Huggins KH, Dworkin SF, Mancl L, Sommers E, LeResche L (1999) RCT for splint treatment in TMD: 12-month self-report outcomes (Abstract 1491). J Dent Res (spec issue) 78:292
Tsuga K, Akagawa Y, Sakaguchi R, Tsuru H (1989) A short-term evaluation of the effectiveness of stabilization-type occlusal splint therapy for specific symptoms of temporomandibular joint dysfunction syndrome. J Prosthet Dent 61:610–613
Tsukiyama Y, Baba K, Clark GT (2001) An evidence-based assessment of occlusal adjustment as a treatment for temporomandibular disorders. J Prosthet Dent 86:57–66
Turk DC, Zaki HS, Rudy TE (1993) Effects of intraoral appliance and biofeedback/stress management alone and in combination in treating pain and depression in patients with temporomandibular disorders. J Prosthet Dent 70:158–164
Türp JC, Schwarzer G (2003) Zur Wirksamkeit therapeutischer Massnahmen: Der Post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc-Trugschluss. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 113:36–46
Türp JC, Kowalski CJ, Stohler CS (1998) Treatment-seeking patterns of facial pain patients: many possibilities, limited satisfaction. J Orofac Pain 12:61–66
Türp JC, Schulte JM, Antes G (2002) Nearly half of dental randomized controlled trials published in German are not included in Medline. Eur J Oral Sci 110:405–411
van der Glas HW, Buchner R, van Grootel RJ (2000) Vergelijking tussen behandelingsvormen bij myogene temporomandibulaire dysfunctie. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd 107:505–512
van der Weele LT, Dibbets JM (1987) Helkimo’s index: a scale or just a set of symptoms? J Oral Rehabil 14:229–237
Vauthier F, Spirgi M (1977) La gouttière occlusale et son influence sur l’enrégistrement frontal du movement d’ouverture maximale et de fermeture dans les cas de troubles algo-dysfonctionnels des articulations temporo-mandibulaires. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 87:189–208
Wahlund K, List T, Larsson B (2003) Treatment of temporomandibular disorders among adolescents: a comparison between occlusal appliance, relaxation training, and brief information. Acta Odontol Scand 61:203–211
Wright E, Anderson G, Schulte J (1995) A randomized clinical trial of intraoral soft splints and palliative treatment for masticatory muscle pain. J Orofac Pain 9:192–199
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Dr. Hiyoyasu Komizumi (Nihon University, Tokyo, Japan) for the search in the Japanese database.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Türp, J.C., Komine, F. & Hugger, A. Efficacy of stabilization splints for the management of patients with masticatory muscle pain: a qualitative systematic review. Clin Oral Invest 8, 179–195 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-004-0265-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-004-0265-4