Temporomandibular Pain Dysfunction: Can Electrotherapy Help?

Gray, RJ M; Quayle, A. A.; Hall, CA; Schofield, M. A.

doi:10.1016/s0031-9406(05)67036-8

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The cumulative effect of laser could have been responsible for the tendency to reduction of pain observed at 60 days follow‐up, being in agreement with the studies of Bezuur (18), Conti (19), Gray (20, 21), Pinheiro (22, 23), Simunovic (11, 12) and Walker (24, 25). Although the laser is related to the reduction of the healing time, it is necessary to wait for the tissues to recover.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Low intensity laser therapy in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: a double‐blind study

Venâncio

Camparis

Lizarelli

2005

J of Oral Rehabilitation

134

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of low intensity laser therapy (LILT) in 30 patients presenting temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pain and mandibular dysfunction in a random and double-blind research design. The sample, divided into experimental group (1) and placebo group (2), was submitted to the treatment with infrared laser (780 nm, 30 mW, 10 s, 6.3 J/cm 2 ) at three TMJ points. The treatment was evaluated throughout six sessions and 15, 30 and 60 days after the end of the therapy, through visual analogue scale (VAS), range of mandibular movements and TMJ pressure pain threshold. The results showed a reduction in VAS (p < 0.001) and through the ANOVA with repeated measures it was observed that the groups did not present statistically significant differences (P = 0.2060), as the averages of the evaluation times (P = 0.3955) and the interaction groups evaluation times (P = 0.3024), considering the MVO. The same occurred for RLE (P = 0.2988, P = 0.1762 and P = 0.7970), LLE (P = 0.3265, P = 0.4143 and P = 0.0696), PPTD (P = 0.1558, P = 0.4695 and P = 0.0737) and PPTE (P = 0.2376, P = 0.3203 and P = 0.0624). For PE, there were not statistically significant differences for groups (P = 0.7017) and the interaction groups evaluation times (P = 0.6678), even so in both groups the PE varied with time (P = 0.0069).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Low intensity laser therapy in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: a double‐blind study

Venâncio

Camparis

Lizarelli

2005

J of Oral Rehabilitation

134

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Subjects were classified into subgroups identified in the RDC/TMD. Seventeen studies 4, 21,22,24,25,27,34,38,[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] involved subjects with myofascial TMD, and 6 studies 9,23,26,30,31,39 involved subjects with disk displacement (1 study with subjects with reduction, 31 3 studies with subjects without reduction, 23,26,30 and 2 studies with subjects with unspecified status as to reduction 9,39 ). One other study 37 involved subjects with myofascial TMD (50%) and subjects with arthritis (50%).…”

Section: Randomizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourteen studies 21,22,24,25,35,[37][38][39]43,[45][46][47]49,50 reported on the similarity of groups at baseline.…”

Section: Similarity Of Groups At Baselinementioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Exercise, Manual Therapy, Electrotherapy, Relaxation Training, and Biofeedback in the Management of Temporomandibular Disorder

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Purpose. This systematic review analyzed studies examining the effectiveness of various physical therapy interventions for temporomandibular disorder. Methods. Studies met 4 criteria: (1) subjects were from 1 of 3 groups identified in the first axis of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders, (2) the intervention was within the realm of physical therapist practice, (3) an experimental design was used, and (4) outcome measures assessed one or more primary presenting symptoms. Thirty studies were evaluated using Sackett's rules of evidence and 10 scientific rigor criteria. Four randomly selected articles were classified independently by 2 raters (interrater agreement of 100% for levels of evidence and 73.5% for methodological rigor). Results. The following recommendations arose from the 30 studies: (1) active exercises and manual mobilizations may be effective; (2) postural training may be used in combination with other interventions, as independent effects of postural training are unknown; (3) mid-laser therapy may be more effective than other electrotherapy modalities; (4) programs involving relaxation techniques and biofeedback, electromyography training, and proprioceptive re-education may be more effective than placebo treatment or occlusal splints; and (5) combinations of active exercises, manual therapy, postural correction, and relaxation techniques may be effective. Discussion and Conclusion. These recommendations should be viewed cautiously. Consensus on defining temporomandibular joint disorder, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and use of reliable and valid outcome measures would yield more rigorous research. [Medlicott MS, Harris SR. A systematic review of the effectiveness of exercise, manual therapy, electrotherapy, relaxation training, and biofeedback in the management of temporomandibular disorder. Phys Ther. 2006;86:955-973.]

show abstract

“…Several studies have been shown to have significant success in the treatment of TMD through combined muscle treatments such as massage, electro-physical therapies (EPT), mobilization, biofeedback and jaw exercise (Crider and Glaros, 1999;Gray et al, 1995;Michelotti et al, 2000;van der Glas et al, 2000). One study found that when comparing manual therapy alongside splint therapy 46% of participants demonstrated complete improvement on both a VAS scale and range of motion assessment, while 40% demonstrated partial improvement, and no patients worse as a result of the manual therapy (Heloe and Hinberg, 1980).…”

Section: Soft Tissue Treatments and Exercisementioning

confidence: 99%