Question · asked by 1 review
Occlusal splint vs Mandibular advancement device: Oral dryness (adverse effect)
- Population
- People with sleep bruxism (tooth grinding or clenching); children (greater than 1 year old) and adults; diagnosis clinical, polysomnographic, or both
- Intervention
- Occlusal splint
- Comparison
- Mandibular advancement device
- Outcome
- Oral dryness (adverse effect)
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Occlusal splint vs Mandibular advancement device Oral dryness (adverse effect) · People with sleep bruxism (tooth grinding or clenching); children (greater than 1 year old) and adults; diagnosis… Occlusal splints for treating sleep bruxism (tooth grinding) (2007) · Cochrane All outcomes | Occlusal splint versus mandibular advancement device (Landry 2006): oral dryness occurred with the MAD min configuration (7/13). | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occlusal splints for treating sleep bruxism (tooth grinding) 2007 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2007-05 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.