Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2019
Effectiveness of applied relaxation method vs splint in treatment of temporomandibular disorders in Finnish students.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Huhtela Outi S, Koivisto Nina, Hägg Vuokko, Sipilä Kirsi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) include pain and dysfunction in masticatory muscles and temporomandibular joints (TMJs). Applied relaxation (AR) is a coping skill that may be applicable for treatment of TMD.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this randomised, controlled study was to evaluate the effectiveness of AR as compared to stabilisation splint (SS), for treatment of TMD during 12-month follow-up.
METHODS: The data were derived from 96 university students seeking treatment due to TMD symptoms at Finnish Student Health Service in Finland. The subjects were randomly divided into two treatment groups: SS (n = 41) and AR (n = 51) groups. Clinical TMD examinations (a modified version of DC/TMD, Axis I) were performed for both the groups at baseline and 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Depressive and non-specific physical symptoms (NSPS) were estimated with Axis II questionnaire (RDC/TMD), and a number of other pain sites were screened at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Data were analysed by means of chi-square test for both groups on five variables, t test for VAS pain intensity and repeated measures ANOVA for palpation pain at follow-up points. Statistical significance was set on P < .05.
RESULTS: Decrease in the number of painful masticatory muscles and TMJs and VAS on pain intensity did not differ between groups. During follow-up, NSPS and number of body pain sites decreased significantly more in the AR than the SS group. The dropout was 56 patients.
CONCLUSION: Neither of the treatments showed more benefit in decreasing local TMD pain. AR gave more benefit on psychological well-being and general pain symptoms.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this randomised, controlled study was to evaluate the effectiveness of AR as compared to stabilisation splint (SS), for treatment of TMD during 12-month follow-up.
METHODS: The data were derived from 96 university students seeking treatment due to TMD symptoms at Finnish Student Health Service in Finland. The subjects were randomly divided into two treatment groups: SS (n = 41) and AR (n = 51) groups. Clinical TMD examinations (a modified version of DC/TMD, Axis I) were performed for both the groups at baseline and 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Depressive and non-specific physical symptoms (NSPS) were estimated with Axis II questionnaire (RDC/TMD), and a number of other pain sites were screened at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Data were analysed by means of chi-square test for both groups on five variables, t test for VAS pain intensity and repeated measures ANOVA for palpation pain at follow-up points. Statistical significance was set on P < .05.
RESULTS: Decrease in the number of painful masticatory muscles and TMJs and VAS on pain intensity did not differ between groups. During follow-up, NSPS and number of body pain sites decreased significantly more in the AR than the SS group. The dropout was 56 patients.
CONCLUSION: Neither of the treatments showed more benefit in decreasing local TMD pain. AR gave more benefit on psychological well-being and general pain symptoms.