Primary study · included by 1 review

Parallel Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial in Patients with Temporomandibular Disorders Treated with a CAD/CAM Versus a Conventional Stabilization Splint.

Pho Duc 2016 · Pho Duc Jean Marc, Hüning Sandra Vargas, Grossi Márcio Lima · The International journal of prosthodontics · 2016

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 Pho Duc 2016 · Table 2; Figures 3-7; Reference 22

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
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
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.