Over-the-counter (OTC) bruxism splints available on the Internet

Assessing the Reproducibility of Research Based on the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Data

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to assess the reproducibility of Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) data-driven studies by analyzing the data queries used in their research processes.

METHODS

Studies using MAUDE data were sourced from PubMed by searching for "MAUDE" or "Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience" in titles or abstracts. We manually chose articles with executable queries. The reproducibility of each query was assessed by replicating it in the MAUDE Application Programming Interface. The reproducibility of a query is determined by a reproducibility coefficient that ranges from 0.95 to 1.05. This coefficient is calculated by comparing the number of medical device reports (MDRs) returned by the reproduced queries to the number of reported MDRs in the original studies. We also computed the reproducibility ratio, which is the fraction of reproducible queries in subgroups divided by the query complexity, the device category, and the presence of a data processing flow.

RESULTS

As of August 8, 2022, we identified 523 articles from which 336 contained queries, and 60 of these were executable. Among these, 14 queries were reproducible. Queries using a single field like product code, product class, or brand name showed higher reproducibility (50%, 33.3%, 31.3%) compared with other fields (8.3%, P = 0.037). Single-category device queries exhibited a higher reproducibility ratio than multicategory ones, but without statistical significance (27.1% versus 8.3%, P = 0.321). Studies including a data processing flow had a higher reproducibility ratio than those without, although this difference was not statistically significant (42.9% versus 17.4%, P = 0.107).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that the reproducibility of queries in MAUDE data-driven studies is limited. Enhancing this requires the development of more effective MAUDE data query strategies and improved application programming interfaces.

Lessons to be learned when designing comprehensible patient-oriented online information about temporomandibular disorders

BACKGROUND

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are a prevalent ailment with a global impact, affecting a substantial number of individuals. While some individuals are receiving treatment from orthodontists for TMD, a significant proportion of individuals obtain knowledge through websites.

OBJECTIVES

Our purpose had been to evaluate, from a patient-oriented perspective, the readability of home pages of websites scored in the 10 most prominent devoted to TMD. We also determined what level of education would have been needed to get an overview of the information on the websites under scrutiny. This approach ensures that our findings are centred on the patient experience, providing insights into how accessible and understandable websites about TMD.

METHODS

We determined the top 10 patient-focused English language websites by searching for 'temporomandibular disorders' in the 'no country redirect' plugin of the Google Chrome browser (www.google.com/ncr). The readability of the texts was assessed using the Gunning fog index (GFI), Coleman Liau index (CLI), Automated readability index (ARI) Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Kincald grade level (FKGL), Flesh reasing ease (FRE) (https://readabilityformulas.com).

RESULTS

The mean Flesch reading ease index score was determined to be 48.67, accompanied by a standard deviation of 15.04 and these websites require an average of 13.49 years of formal education (GFI), with a standard deviation of 2.62, for ease of understanding.

CONCLUSION

Our research indicates that a significant proportion of websites related to TMD can be defined as a level of complexity that exceeds the ability to read comprehension of the general population.

Online Bruxism-related information: Can people understand what they read? A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Bruxism patients often access the web to search for information. Unfortunately, the low text readability of online material and the limited medical literacy in the general population may prevent patients' understanding of health information.

OBJECTIVE(S)

We aimed to assess the home page's readability of the top 10 patients-oriented bruxism-related websites and the educational level required to approach them.

METHODS

Using the word bruxism in the "no country redirect" extension of Google Chrome browser (www.google.com/ncr), we identified the first 10 patient-oriented English language websites. The readability of the material was determined using six commonly recommended readability tests (1): Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman Liau Index (CLI), Automated Readability Index (ARI) Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Kincald Grade Level (FKGL), Flesh Reasing Ease (FRE).

RESULTS

The USA National Institutes of Health requirements, which call for websites to be readable at a 6th to 7th-grade level, were not followed by any of the most popular websites.

CONCLUSION

The average consumer frequently finds the health information on the Internet to be too complex to understand, which can lead to misinterpretation, a delay in diagnosis, and poorer health consequences.

Temporomandibular disorders: a review of current concepts in aetiology, diagnosis and management

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) is a collective term for a group of musculoskeletal conditions involving pain and/or dysfunction in the masticatory muscles, temporomandibular joints (TMJ) and associated structures. It is the most common type of non-odontogenic orofacial pain and patients can present with pain affecting the face/head, TMJ and or teeth, limitations in jaw movement, and sounds in the TMJ during jaw movements. Comorbid painful and non-painful conditions are also common among individuals with TMD. The diagnosis of TMD have significantly improved over time with the recent Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) being reliable and valid for most common diagnoses, and an efficient way to communicate in multidisciplinary settings. This classification covers 12 most common TMD, including painful (myalgia, arthralgia and headache attributed to TMD) as well as the non-painful (disc displacements, degenerative joint disease and subluxation) TMD diagnoses. Recent studies have demonstrated that the pathophysiology of common painful TMD is biopsychosocial and multifactorial, where no one factor is responsible for its development. Importantly, research has suggested different predisposing, initiating and perpetuating factors, including both peripheral and central mechanisms. This is an active field of investigation and future studies will not only seek to clarify specific causal pathways but translate this knowledge into mechanism-directed diagnosis and treatment. In accordance with this complex aetiology, current evidence supports primarily conservative multidisciplinary treatment including self-management strategies, behavioural therapy, physical therapy and pharmacotherapy. The aim of this review is to present an overview of most recent developments in aetiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of TMD.

Oral splints for patients with temporomandibular disorders or bruxism: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Splints are a non-invasive, reversible management option for temporomandibular disorders or bruxism. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of splints remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of splints for patients with temporomandibular disorders or bruxism. This evidence synthesis compared (1) all types of splint versus no/minimal treatment/control splints and (2) prefabricated versus custom-made splints, for the primary outcomes, which were pain (temporomandibular disorders) and tooth wear (bruxism).

REVIEW METHODS

Four databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched from inception until 1 October 2018 for randomised clinical trials. The searches were conducted on 1 October 2018. Cochrane review methods (including risk of bias) were used for the systematic review. Standardised mean differences were pooled for the primary outcome of pain, using random-effects models in temporomandibular disorder patients. A Markov cohort, state-transition model, populated using current pain and Characteristic Pain Intensity data, was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for splints compared with no splint, from an NHS perspective over a lifetime horizon. A value-of-information analysis identified future research priorities.

RESULTS

Fifty-two trials were included in the systematic review. The evidence identified was of very low quality with unclear reporting by temporomandibular disorder subtype. When all subtypes were pooled into one global temporomandibular disorder group, there was no evidence that splints reduced pain [standardised mean difference (at up to 3 months) -0.18, 95% confidence interval -0.42 to 0.06; substantial heterogeneity] when compared with no splints or a minimal intervention. There was no evidence that other outcomes, including temporomandibular joint noises, decreased mouth-opening, and quality of life, improved when using splints. Adverse events were generally not reported, but seemed infrequent when reported. The most plausible base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was uncertain and driven by the lack of clinical effectiveness evidence. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed splints becoming more cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of ≈£6000, but the probability never exceeded 60% at higher levels of willingness to pay. Results were sensitive to longer-term extrapolation assumptions. A value-of-information analysis indicated that further research is required. There were no studies measuring tooth wear in patients with bruxism. One small study looked at pain and found a reduction in the splint group [mean difference (0-10 scale) -2.01, 95% CI -1.40 to -2.62; very low-quality evidence]. As there was no evidence of a difference between splints and no splints, the second objective became irrelevant.

LIMITATIONS

There was a large variation in the diagnostic criteria, splint types and outcome measures used and reported. Sensitivity analyses based on these limitations did not indicate a reduction in pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The very low-quality evidence identified did not demonstrate that splints reduced pain in temporomandibular disorders as a group of conditions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not splints reduce tooth wear in patients with bruxism. There remains substantial uncertainty surrounding the most plausible incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

FUTURE WORK

There is a need for well-conducted trials to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of splints in patients with carefully diagnosed and subtyped temporomandibular disorders, and patients with bruxism, using agreed measures of pain and tooth wear.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068512.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effects of invisible orthodontic retainers on masticatory muscles activity during sleep: a controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This study aims to evaluate if invisible orthodontic retainers can affect sleep-time masticatory muscle activity (sMMA) over a short-term period in healthy individuals.

METHODS

Nineteen (N = 19) healthy subjects underwent an in-home evaluation with a portable device for electromyographic (EMG) assessment. The study protocol provided two baseline recording nights, a night off, and then two additional nights with passive customized orthodontic retainers in situ. For each recording night, the sleep bruxism (SB) index (i.e., average number of SB events/hour) and the overall number of masseter muscle contractions were assessed. Comparison between values gathered over the four recording nights was made with a parametric test, based on the null hypothesis that there was no difference between wearing or not wearing the retainers as far as the sMMA variables are concerned.

RESULTS

Average SB index of the first two nights without the retainers was 3.0 ± 1.5, whilst the average values with the retainers in situ was 3.6 ± 1.9. ANOVA test showed the absence of significant differences between the four nights. Similarly, no differences were shown between the four nights as for the total number of sMMA events. Based on that, the null hypothesis was not rejected.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest the absence of relevant effects of invisible orthodontic retainers on sMMA in healthy individuals during the short-term period.