Comparison Between Splint and Laser in Patients Without Disc Displacement With Reduction

Mansoura University

Status: Completed

Conditions: TMJ Disc Disorder

Treatments: Device: stabilization splint; Device: stabilization splint and laser therapy; Device: laser therapy

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT05548894

A34080622

Details and patient eligibility

About

Stabilization splint therapy and Low-level laser therapy may serve as non-invasive intervention for painful temporomandibular disorders, but its efficacy is still debated. This study compared the effect of stabilization splint and low-level laser therapy alone or in combination in patients with painful chronic closed lock of temporomandibular joints disc displacement without Reduction 42 patients diagnosed with chronic closed lock of disc displacement without reduction were allocated equally and randomly into three treatment groups: group I received combined stabilization splint and low- level laser therapy, group II received low - level laser therapy and group III received stabilization splint. They were evaluated at baseline and one week, two weeks, four weeks, three months, and six months after the intervention.

Full description

Objectives: Stabilization splint therapy and low- level laser therapy may serve as non-invasive intervention for painful temporomandibular disorders, but its efficacy is still debated. This study compared the effect of stabilization splint and low- level laser therapy alone or in combination in patients with painful chronic closed lock of temporomandibular joints disc displacement without Reduction.

Patients and methods: 42 patients diagnosed with chronic closed lock of disc displacement without reduction were allocated equally and randomly into three treatment groups: group I received combined stabilization splint and low-level laser therapy, group II received low-level laser therapy and group III received stabilization splint. They were evaluated at baseline and one week, two weeks, four weeks, three months, and six months after the intervention. Time of being normal was also evaluated.

Enrollment: 42 patients

Sex: All

Ages: 18 to 55 years old

Volunteers: No Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

• Clinical diagnosis of chronic closed lock patients
• Must not be able to open their mouth

Exclusion criteria

• neurologic diseases
• TMJ pathologic lesions

Trial design

Primary purpose: Health Services Research

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: None (Open label)

---

42 participants in 3 patient groups

stabilization splint

Active Comparator group

Description:

acrylic splint in the maxillary arch with flat surface

Treatment:

Device: stabilization splint

laser therapy

Active Comparator group

Description:

laser beam directed to the affected part cause activation of blood circulation

Treatment:

Device: laser therapy

stabilization splint and laser therapy

Active Comparator group

Description:

using both laser therapy and stabilization splint for more improvement

Treatment:

Device: stabilization splint and laser therapy