Effect of a 6-week multimodal physiotherapy programme versus occlusal splint therapy on pain, mouth opening and quality of life in adults with muscular Temporomandibular disorders: A non-randomised controlled clinical trial
In brief
Physiotherapy raises right masseter pain threshold more than splint in TMD
In a six-week non-randomised trial of 24 adults with muscular temporomandibular disorder, both multimodal physiotherapy and occlusal splint reduced pain, increased mouth opening and improved oral health-related quality of life. The physiotherapy group showed a greater increase in right masseter pressure pain threshold than the splint group, but the study is limited by its small size and short follow-up.
- Journal
- Cranio : the journal of craniomandibular practice (Q2)
- Published
- 16 September 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Ana M Mestre, Paula M Alves, Pedro M Cebola
- PMID
- 42750297
- DOI
- 10.1080/08869634.2026.2733449
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Otorhinolaryngology (top studies of the week, 20 September 2026): Temporomandibular disorder physiotherapy, outside ENT scope
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are multifactorial conditions that impair quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the effects of a multimodal programme versus an occlusal splint therapy on pain modulation, mouth opening, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in adults with muscular TMD and restricted unassisted mouth opening over a six-week period. METHODS: In this non-randomised controlled clinical trial, 24 adults were allocated to multimodal physiotherapy group (G1) or occlusal splint therapy group (G2). Outcomes were pain intensity, pressure pain threshold (PPT), mouth opening and OHRQoL. RESULTS: Both interventions significantly improved pain intensity, mouth opening and OHRQoL. G1 improved PPT across all assessed muscles, whereas G2 improved only the left temporalis. The only significant between-group difference was right masseter PPT, favouring G1 (p = .022). CONCLUSION: Both interventions produced clinically meaningful short-term improvements. Findings are preliminary due to the non-randomised design, small sample and lack of long-term follow-up. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT07410091 (retrospectively registered).
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.