International journal of computerized dentistry · 2020
Intraoral sensor-based monitoring of stabilization splint therapy in patients with myofascial pain.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Krohn Sebastian, Hampe Tristan, Brack Frederike, Wassmann Torsten, Bürgers Ralf
Аннотация
AIM: The present study aimed to evaluate intraoral microsensors for the objective measurement of patient compliance during splint therapy and to comparatively analyze the duration of mandibular and maxillary splint application in patients with myofascial pain.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients with sole myofascial pain without limited opening (Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders [RDC/TMD] Ia) were divided into two groups. To ensure patient comparability, all pressure-sensitive sites from the initial palpation were summarized as pain scores. The subjects in group 1 were treated with maxillary stabilization splints, and those in group 2 with mandibular stabilization splints. All splints were equipped with a microsensor without interfering static or dynamic occlusion. Wear pattern was recorded at three intervals of 30 days each. Following the observation period, the data were retrieved and statistically evaluated using multi-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Bland-Altman analysis.
RESULTS: During the observation period, maxillary splints were applied in 44.4% and mandibular splints in 44.2% of the days. Regarding patient compliance, there was no significant difference between the maxillary and mandibular splints (P = 0.359). Patients with an increased pain score (P < 0.0001) and female patients (P = 0.013) wore their splints significantly more often. The wear time decreased over the observation period, whereas only the initial and terminal interval differed significantly across both the mandibular and maxillary splint groups (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: The microsensor used in the present study was an effective and reliable tool for monitoring patient compliance in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). This method also allows for the reliable recording of intraoral splint application prior to the required bite elevations. The two types of splints analyzed in the present study had no significant influence on compliance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients with sole myofascial pain without limited opening (Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders [RDC/TMD] Ia) were divided into two groups. To ensure patient comparability, all pressure-sensitive sites from the initial palpation were summarized as pain scores. The subjects in group 1 were treated with maxillary stabilization splints, and those in group 2 with mandibular stabilization splints. All splints were equipped with a microsensor without interfering static or dynamic occlusion. Wear pattern was recorded at three intervals of 30 days each. Following the observation period, the data were retrieved and statistically evaluated using multi-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Bland-Altman analysis.
RESULTS: During the observation period, maxillary splints were applied in 44.4% and mandibular splints in 44.2% of the days. Regarding patient compliance, there was no significant difference between the maxillary and mandibular splints (P = 0.359). Patients with an increased pain score (P < 0.0001) and female patients (P = 0.013) wore their splints significantly more often. The wear time decreased over the observation period, whereas only the initial and terminal interval differed significantly across both the mandibular and maxillary splint groups (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: The microsensor used in the present study was an effective and reliable tool for monitoring patient compliance in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). This method also allows for the reliable recording of intraoral splint application prior to the required bite elevations. The two types of splints analyzed in the present study had no significant influence on compliance.