↓ Skip to main content

Orthodontics for treating temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Orthodontics for treating temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006541.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Friedy Luther, Stephen Layton, Fraser McDonald

Abstract

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) relate to discomfort of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). The disorder is multifactorial with a degree of psychogenic influence varying throughout an individual's life with phases of symptoms affecting the quality of life. In an attempt to treat this complex group of disorders many treatment modalities have been identified some of which are also considered in other Cochrane reviews. The disorder also has a normal cycle of events appearing to spontaneously improve without treatment. To establish the effectiveness of orthodontic intervention in reducing symptoms in patients with TMD (compared with any control group receiving no treatment, placebo treatment or reassurance) and to establish if active orthodontic intervention leads to TMD. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching of orthodontic journals and other related journals was undertaken in keeping with the Cochrane Collaboration handsearching programme. No language restrictions were applied.Authors of any studies were identified, as were experts offering legal advice, and contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: 13th April 2010. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including quasi-randomised trials assessing orthodontic treatment for TMD were included. Studies with adults aged equal to or above 18 years old with clinically diagnosed TMD were included. There were no age restrictions for prevention trials provided the follow-up period extended into adulthood. The inclusion criteria required reports to state their diagnostic criteria for TMD at the start of treatment and for participants to exhibit two or more of the signs and/or symptoms. The treatment group included treatment with appliances that could induce stable orthodontic tooth movement. Patients receiving splints for 8 to 12 weeks and studies involving surgical intervention (direct exploration/surgery of the joint and/or orthognathic surgery to correct an abnormality of the underlying skeletal pattern) were excluded. The outcomes were: how well were the symptoms reduced, adverse effects on oral health and quality of life. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in triplicate and independently by three review authors. As no two studies compared the same treatment strategies (interventions) it was not possible to combine the results of any studies. The searches identified 284 records from all databases. Initial screening of the abstracts and titles by all review authors identified 55 articles which related to orthodontic treatment and TMD. The full articles were then retrieved and of these articles only four demonstrated any data that might be of value with respect to TMD and orthodontics. After further analysis of the full texts of the four studies identified, none of the retrieved studies met the inclusion criteria and all were excluded from this review. There are insufficient research data on which to base our clinical practice on the relationship of active orthodontic intervention and TMD. There is an urgent need for high quality randomised controlled trials in this area of orthodontic practice.When considering consent for patients it is essential to reflect the seemingly random development/alleviation of TMD signs and symptoms.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 76 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Postgraduate 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 22 29%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 16 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 January 2016.
All research outputs
#11,143,466
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,923
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,083
of 335,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#157
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 335,317 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.