evidencegaps
Primary study · included by 1 review

Clinical comparison of conventional and additive manufactured stabilization splints.

Berntsen 2018 · Berntsen Christian, Kleven Martin, Heian Marianne, et al. · Acta biomaterialia odontologica Scandinavica · 2018

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 Berntsen 2018 · Table 2; Figures 3-7; Reference 21
Outcome this study informsPooled effectEvidenceCertainty
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 participantsGRADE 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 participantsGRADE 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 participantsGRADE 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 participantsGRADE 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 participantsGRADE 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 participantsGRADE 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 participantsGRADE 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 participantsGRADE 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 participantsGRADE 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 participantsGRADE 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 participantsGRADE not reported

1 including review in total.