Signs and symptoms related to temporomandibular disorders—Follow-up of subjects with shortened and complete dental arches

Relationship between chewing side preference and handedness and lateral asymmetry of peripheral factors

“…3,12 However, there is no agreement on whether peripheral factors such as occlusion, 3,[13][14][15][16] the most efficient side for chewing 17,18 or temporomandibular disorders (TMD) 3,[19][20][21][22] influence the preferred chewing side. Other factors that have been related with preferred chewing side are bilateral asymmetry in bite force at submaximal clenching level, 14 the ability to move the jaw laterally 23,24 and facial asymmetry. 19 Several types of test food have been used to determine chewing side preference.…”

Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Short Dental Arch: Systematic Review.

“…The Witter et al (2001) clinical trial invited subjects to join the department for a study, and no attempt was made to randomize patients, thus it is judged as having a high risk of bias [55][56][57] 45,49 have high risk of bias for allocation.…”

“…The Witter et al (2001) study can be considered as a single blinded study because evaluation of outcomes was completed by a calibrated observer at all intervals, but it was not stated as such, thus it is judged as having an unclear risk of bias [55][56][57] . Mc Kenna (2012) indicated that the researcher was not involved in the intervention allocation, making it a single-blinded study, thus it is judged as having a low risk of bias 47,48 .…”

“…On the other hand, Budtz-Jorgensen and Isidor (1987) did not indicate and specify how the analysis was completed, but all pre-specified outcomes were reported, and the number of losses to follow-up was small, thus it was judged as having a low risk of bias 33,34,37 . In the Budtz-Jorgensen and Isidor (1987) and Witter et al (2001) studies all outcomes were reported but outcomes were not prespecified as primary or secondary outcomes 33,34,37,[55][56][57] Both these studies were thus judged as having a high risk of bias. The three remaining RCTs specified the outcomes as primary and secondary and reported these as such, thus these were judged as having a low risk of bias [39][40][41][42][46][47][48][50][51][52][53][54] .…”

“…These downgraded RCTs could thus affect the quality of evidence only slightly 38,61 . For example, the BudtzJorgensen (1987BudtzJorgensen ( , 1990 and Witter et al (2001) studies could be regarded as downgraded CTs 10,33,34,37,[55][56][57] .…”