Primary study · included by 1 review

Algabri 2017

ProbableThe reviews cited this study without a PMID, DOI or NCT, so it is matched by first author and year. Two different studies by the same author in the same year could be merged here.

Included by

Digital Versus Conventional Splints in Patients With Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Algabri 2017 · Table 2; Figures 3-7; Reference 20

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Pain intensity (VAS) Digitally fabricated (CAD/CAM) occlusal splint vs Conventionally fabricated occlusal splint · Last available follow-up	MD -0.31 [-1.07, 0.45]	6 studies · 346 participants	GRADE not reported
Pain intensity (VAS) Digitally fabricated (CAD/CAM) occlusal splint vs Conventionally fabricated occlusal splint · Last available follow-up	MD 0.03 [-0.65, 0.72]	6 studies · 246 participants	GRADE not reported
Maximum mouth opening Digitally fabricated (CAD/CAM) occlusal splint vs Conventionally fabricated occlusal splint · Not specified	MD -0.10 [-0.97, 0.77]	3 studies · 158 participants	GRADE not reported
Pain intensity (VAS) Digitally fabricated (CAD/CAM) occlusal splint vs Conventionally fabricated occlusal splint · Last available follow-up	MD -0.33 [-1.13, 0.47]	6 studies · 354 participants	GRADE not reported
Pain intensity (VAS) Digitally fabricated (CAD/CAM) occlusal splint vs Conventionally fabricated occlusal splint · Last available follow-up	MD -0.22 [-1.08, 0.64]	6 studies · 358 participants	GRADE not reported
Limited mouth opening Digitally fabricated (CAD/CAM) occlusal splint vs Conventionally fabricated occlusal splint · Not specified	MD -0.09 [-1.03, 0.86]	2 studies · 62 participants	GRADE not reported
Pain intensity (VAS) Digitally fabricated (CAD/CAM) occlusal splint vs Conventionally fabricated occlusal splint · Last available follow-up	MD -0.04 [-0.77, 0.68]	6 studies · 348 participants	GRADE not reported
Pain intensity (VAS) Digitally fabricated (CAD/CAM) occlusal splint vs Conventionally fabricated occlusal splint · Last available follow-up	MD -0.20 [-0.92, 0.51]	6 studies · 364 participants	GRADE not reported
Mouth opening (limited and maximum combined) Digitally fabricated (CAD/CAM) occlusal splint vs Conventionally fabricated occlusal splint · Not specified	MD -0.09 [-0.73, 0.55]	5 studies · 220 participants	GRADE not reported
Pain intensity (VAS) Digitally fabricated (CAD/CAM) occlusal splint vs Conventionally fabricated occlusal splint · Last available follow-up	MD -0.22 [-0.92, 0.48]	7 studies · 378 participants	GRADE not reported
Pain intensity (VAS) Digitally fabricated (CAD/CAM) occlusal splint vs Conventionally fabricated occlusal splint · Last available follow-up	MD -0.45 [-1.13, 0.23]	6 studies · 252 participants	GRADE not reported

1 including review in total.