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