Skip to main content

Table 4 Improvement in MMO due to various factor

From: Effect of arthrocentesis on the clinical outcome of various treatment methods for temporomandibular joint disorders

 

MMO

N

Pre

Post

P value*

Difference of MMO

P value

Mean

(SD)

Mean

(SD)

Mean

(SD)

Appliance treatment

        

0.4792a

 No splint

32

36.84

(8.33)

45.44

(8.64)

< .0001

8.59

(6.61)

 

 Splint tx

25

37.76

(6.12)

47.52

(5.33)

< .0001

9.76

(5.46)

 

Type of appliance tx

        

0.5993b

 No splint

32

36.84

(8.33)

45.44

(8.64)

< .0001

8.59

(6.61)

 

 ARS

9

38.11

(5.58)

46.89

(5.80)

0.0007

8.78

(4.94)

 

 ARS and CRS

15

37.27

(6.69)

47.80

(5.39)

< .0001

10.53

(5.94)

 

Dx

        

0.0156b

 DD with locking

32

33.38

(6.97)

44.50

(8.14)

< .0001

11.13

(6.73)

 

 DD without locking

15

42.40

(4.40)

48.80

(5.56)

< .0001

6.40

(4.27)

 

 DJD

10

41.90

(4.61)

48.60

(5.99)

0.0003

6.70

(3.80)

 

Muscle relaxants

        

0.6190a

 No

11

38.09

(6.47)

46.36

(5.18)

0.0005

8.27

(5.37)

 

 Yes

46

37.04

(7.65)

46.35

(7.87)

< .0001

9.30

(6.31)

 

Locking period

        

0.6441a

 < 6 months

34

37.26

(8.06)

46.06

(8.37)

0.0005

8.79

(5.80)

 

 ≥ 6 months

23

37.22

(6.46)

46.78

(5.78)

< .0001

9.57

(6.64)

 
  1. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant
  2. DD disc displacement, DJD degenerative joint disease, ARS anterior repositioning splint, CRS centric relation splint
  3. *p value calculated by paired t-test
  4. Difference = post − pre
  5. aP value calculated by t test
  6. bP value calculated by ANOVA