Akat Bora, Akören Ayşe Cavidan, Tamam Evşen
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University, Ankara 06100, Turkey.
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara 06500, Turkey.
Medicina (Kaunas). 2025 Jun 12;61(6):1083. doi: 10.3390/medicina61061083.
: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of hard, soft, and semi-soft splints on TMJ vibrations in bruxers with JVA and to compare them with data obtained from asymptomatic individuals. : A total of 64 individuals were divided into four subgroups: control ( = 15); and hard ( = 17), soft ( = 16), and semi-soft ( = 16) splints. Electrovibratography records from all individuals included in the study before and after the 3-month splint treatment were obtained with the Biopak System. Joint vibration analysis was used to evaluate TMJ sounds. Data normality was examined with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Levene tests. The significance of the differences was investigated by One-Way ANOVA and by the Kruskal-Wallis test. Conover's multiple comparison test was used in post hoc tests. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06893744, on 24 March 2025, titled; Effects of Different Occlusal Splints). : After 3 months of treatment, for I < 300 Hz right opening, the control group was statistically lower than both semi-soft ( < 0.001) and hard ( < 0.001) splint groups. The difference between semi-soft and hard splints in post-treatment I < 300 Hz right opening is not statistically significant. After 3 months of treatment compared with the beginning, the increases in left-opening Ti ( = 0.004), I < 300 Hz ( = 0.004), and PA ( = 0.007) values in the soft splint group were statistically significant. : All three kinds of splints improved clinical symptoms and complaints of bruxers. For joint vibrations in bruxers, hard and semi-soft splints are more beneficial than soft splints.
本研究旨在评估硬式、软式和半软式牙合板对伴有关节盘前移位(JVA)的磨牙症患者颞下颌关节(TMJ)振动的影响,并将其与无症状个体的数据进行比较。
总共64名个体被分为四个亚组:对照组(n = 15);硬式牙合板组(n = 17)、软式牙合板组(n = 16)和半软式牙合板组(n = 16)。使用Biopak系统获取研究中所有个体在3个月牙合板治疗前后的电振动图记录。采用关节振动分析来评估颞下颌关节声音。通过Kolmogorov-Smirnov检验和Levene检验检查数据正态性。采用单因素方差分析和Kruskal-Wallis检验研究差异的显著性。事后检验采用Conover多重比较检验。(ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT06893744,于2025年3月24日,标题:不同牙合板的效果)。
治疗3个月后,对于开口度小于300Hz的右侧开口,对照组在统计学上低于半软式牙合板组(P < 0.001)和硬式牙合板组(P < 0.001)。治疗后开口度小于300Hz的右侧开口时,半软式牙合板组和硬式牙合板组之间的差异无统计学意义。与治疗开始时相比,治疗3个月后软式牙合板组左侧开口的Ti值(P = 0.004)、开口度小于300Hz时的值(P = 0.004)和PA值(P = 0.007)的增加具有统计学意义。
所有三种牙合板均改善了磨牙症患者的临床症状和主诉。对于磨牙症患者的关节振动,硬式和半软式牙合板比软式牙合板更有益。
Medicina (Kaunas). 2025-6-12
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020-1-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007-10-17
J Oral Facial Pain Headache. 2024-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-4-4
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012-6-13
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2024-7
BMC Oral Health. 2023-8-29
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020-1-22
J Prosthet Dent. 2015-9