↓ Skip to main content

Effects of oral motor exercises and laser therapy on chronic temporomandibular disorders: a randomized study with follow-up

Overview of attention for article published in Lasers in Medical Science, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
307 Mendeley
Title
Effects of oral motor exercises and laser therapy on chronic temporomandibular disorders: a randomized study with follow-up
Published in
Lasers in Medical Science, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10103-016-1935-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara Cristina Zanandréa Machado, Marcelo Oliveira Mazzetto, Marco Antonio M. Rodrigues Da Silva, Cláudia Maria de Felício

Abstract

This study investigated the efficacy of combining low-level laser therapy (LLLT) with oral motor exercises (OM-exercises) for rehabilitation of patients with chronic temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). Eighty-two patients with chronic TMD and 20 healthy subjects (control group) participated in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups: GI (LLLT + OM exercises), GII (orofacial myofunctional therapy-OMT-which contains pain relief strategies and OM-exercises), and GIII (LLLT placebo + OM-exercises) and GIV (LLLT). LLLT (AsGaAl; 780-nm wavelength; average power of 60 mW, 40 s, and 60 ± 1.0 J/cm²) was used to promote analgesia, while OM-exercises were used to reestablish the orofacial functions. Evaluations at baseline (T1), after treatment immediate (T2), and at follow-up (T3) were muscle and joint tenderness to palpation, TMD severity, and orofacial myofunctional status. There was a significant improvement in outcome measures in all treated groups with stability at follow-up (Friedman test, P < 0.05), but GIV did not show difference in orofacial functions after LLLT (P > 0.05). Intergroup comparisons showed that all treated groups had no difference in tenderness to palpation of temporal muscle compared to GC at follow-up (Kruskal-Wallis test, P < 0.01). Moreover, GI, GII, and GIII showed no difference from GC in orofacial functional condition (T2 and T3) while they differed significantly from GIV (P < 0.01). In conclusion, LLLT combined with OM-exercises was more effective in promoting TMD rehabilitation than LLLT alone was. Similar treatment results were verified with the OMT protocol.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 307 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 307 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 52 17%
Student > Master 39 13%
Student > Postgraduate 21 7%
Other 14 5%
Researcher 14 5%
Other 59 19%
Unknown 108 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 53 17%
Unspecified 13 4%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 1%
Other 23 7%
Unknown 116 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 June 2016.
All research outputs
#6,972,688
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Medical Science
#235
of 1,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,567
of 269,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Medical Science
#6
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,309 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
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 269,982 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.