Physiotherapy for the management of temporomandibular disorders: Findings from United Kingdom practice

Weden, Alexander; Bateman, P; Gordon, Cathy; Hodgson, Nicola; Durham, Justin

doi:10.1111/ors.12712

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found that both dry needling and manual therapy are effective in increasing AMMO in patients with TMDs after the first session and after the interventions have finished, although no statistically significant differences between therapies were established. Previous investigations have reported that the MCID in active mouth opening varies between 6.5 and 9 mm [ 38 ]. Neither of these therapies exceeded these MCID values, although our findings may be underestimated due to the small sample size.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Dry Needling versus Manual Therapy in Myofascial Temporomandibular Disorders: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

García-de la-Banda-García,

Cortés-Pérez,

Ibancos-Losada

et al. 2023

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dry needling (DN) is an invasive physiotherapy technique employed for reducing myofascial pain. To compare the effectiveness of dry needling (DN) versus manual therapy (MT) in improving pain, active maximal mouth opening (AMMO) and cervical disability in patients with myofascial pain from temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) were investigated against these treatments. A single-blind, randomized controlled trial was carried out. Individuals (n = 50) with TMDs were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the DN (n = 25) or MT group (n = 25). Each group received three sessions, separated by 4 days, of either DN or MT. Outcomes were assessed according to pain intensity (Numeric Pain Rating Scale), AMMO (cm), disability (Neck Disability Index), and pressure–pain threshold (PPT) (digital algometry) from the active myofascial trigger points. In both groups, pain and neck disability were significantly lower at the end of treatment compared with those measured at baseline (pain: −2.52 with 95% CI: −3.43 to −1.60 for DN group; pain: −2.92 with 95% CI: −3.77 to −2.07 for MT group; disability: −3.2 with 95% CI: −4.31 to −2.09 for DN group; disability: −2.68 with 95% CI: −3.56 to −1.79 for MT group), but not were not lower after the first session, without differences between the groups. AMMO was significantly higher after the first session (0.16 with 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.29 for DN group; 0.30 with 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.41 for MT group) and at the end of treatment in both groups (0.27 with 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.41 for DN group; 0.37 with 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.52 for MT group) compared with the baseline measurements. Finally, PPT results for the masseter and pterygoid muscles were significantly higher at the end of treatment in both groups (without statistically significant differences between groups), but not after the first session. The assessed therapies, DN and MT, are equally effective in improving pain, AMMO, cervical disability, and PPT in the muscles directly involved in the temporomandibular joint biomechanics of patients with myofascial TMDs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%