Ensaio clínico controlado randomizado paralelo em pacientes com desordem temporomandibular (DTM) tratados com placa de estabilização convencional (tipo Michigan) versus placa CAD/CAM

• Autor(a) principal: Hüning, Sandra Vargas
• Data de Publicação: 2014
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_RS
• Texto Completo: http://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/handle/tede/1278
• topic: ODONTOLOGIA; ARTICULAÇÃO TEMPOROMANDIBULAR - DISFUNÇÕES; PLACAS OCLUSAIS; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA

Objective: This parallel RCT compared the efficacy of a CAD/CAM versus a conventional stabilization splint in patients with TMD. Materials and Methods: 48 age-matched TMD patients from the Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich (LMU), Prosthodontic Department were randomly allocated into groups I (CAD/CAM splint) and II (conventional splint). The RDC/TMD was used for TMD Axis I (groups I, II and III) and Axis II (chronic pain grade - CPG) diagnoses. Numerical Scales (10 cm TMD/NS) were used to measure headaches, face pain, jaw joint pain, jaw joint noises, mastication pain, neck pain, face tension, limitation of mouth opening, complaints during mastication, and teeth sensitivity at baseline and then monthly during 9 months (T1 to T10). Optical axiography was used to measure both right and left condyle movements (mm) at baseline, at 3 months, and at 6 months (T1 to T3). Results: 32 patients (drop-out rate=33%, 68.75% women, 28.51 ± 7.13 years old), or 16 per group, completed the study. RDC/TMD Axis I showed the following diagnoses: a) 93.75% muscle disorders, b) 37.75% disk displacement with reduction, c) 3.12% disk displacement without reduction, and d) 56.25% arthralgia. There was a significant reduction in 10 of the 13 items of the TMD/NS scales in the CAD/CAM splint versus 8 items in the conventional splint. However, no significant improvement in mandibular movements (i.e., increase in range of motion) and reduction in asymmetry between right and left condyles was observed. Conclusion: Both treatments were equally efficacious and no difference was found between them.