Metabolic Liver.Dysfunction-Associated Steato Diseasetic

Background

The logistic regression analyses revealed that, after correcting for the background variables, stabilisation appliance treatment was a strong explanatory factor for a positive treatment outcome, with a significance of P = 0.0013 compared to patients belonging to the control group. Background variables of significant importance for the treatment outcome were male sex (positive) (P = 0.0268), and severe or very severe TMJ pain (negative) (P = 0.0034). These findings indicate that not only the treatment with a stabilisation appliance but also sex and the intensity of the TMJ pain before treatment might influence the treatment outcome in patients with TMD of arthrogeneous origin.

Fifty-eight patients with temporomandibular disorders of arthrogenous origin were assigned to two equally sized groups: a treatment group given a stabilization appliance; and a control group, given a control appliance. The study covered 10 weeks. The treatment outcome regarding changes in severity of temporomandibular joint pain on a verbal scale was compared to changes in the condyle-fossa relationship in horizontally corrected oblique lateral transcranial radiographs taken with and without the appliance. Condyle-fossa relationship and structural bone changes were observed before treatment in corrected lateral tomograms. The purposes of this study were to compare changes in the condyle-fossa relationship in patients with temporomandibular disorders of arthrogenous origin treated with either a stabilization or a control appliance in a double-blind controlled study, and to compare the changes in the condyle-fossa relationship with the short-term treatment effect in the two treatment groups. The radiographic appearance of the temporomandibular joint was also studied.

To compare the long-term effect of treatment with a stabilization appliance (group T) and treatment with a control appliance (group C) in temporomandibular disorder (TMD) patients with myofascial pain. In this controlled trial, 60 patients (mean age 29 years) with myofascial pain were evaluated after 10 weeks of treatment with either a stabilization appliance or a control appliance. All 60 patients were then assigned to 1 of 3 groups according to demand for treatment. Seventeen patients from group C requested another appliance and were given a stabilization appliance, thus creating a mixed group (group M). A significant difference in improvement of overall subjective symptoms in an intent-to-treat analysis between groups T and C was found at the follow-ups. In a survival analysis of treatment compliance, a significant difference was found between groups T and C. At the 6- and 12-month follow-ups, a significant reduction in myofascial pain, as measured on a visual analog scale, was found in all three groups. A significant decrease in frequency and intensity of myofascial pain was found in group T at the follow-ups. A significant decrease in number of tender sites on the masticatory muscles was found in group T at the follow-ups.

To compare the short-term efficacy of treatment with a stabilization appliance compared with that of a non-occlusal, control appliance in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) of mainly myogenous origin. A randomized, controlled trial was performed with 60 patients suffering from myofascial pain. Patients were randomly assigned to a treatment or a control group. The treatment group was treated by means of a stabilization appliance and the control group by means of a non-occlusal appliance. Symptoms and signs were registered before and after 10 weeks of treatment. Improvement of overall subjective symptoms was reported in both groups, but significantly more often in the treatment group than in the control group (P = .000). The prevalence of daily or constant pain showed a significant reduction in the treatment group (P = .028) compared with the control group. There was a significant decrease in the number of tender masticatory muscles in the treatment group (P = .018) compared with the control group.

Relevant Prescribing Information

In a controlled trial, 60 TMD patients with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pain were evaluated after 10 weeks of treatment with either a stabilization appliance or a control appliance. At the 10-week follow-up, the 60 patients were assigned to one of three groups according to their demand for treatment. Group T, the treatment group, comprised 30 patients treated with a stabilization appliance; group C, the control group, comprised nine patients treated with a control appliance; and group M, the mixed treatment group, comprised 21 patients treated with first a control appliance and then a stabilization appliance. Signs and symptoms were evaluated in all three groups at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. After 6 and 12 months of use, the stabilization appliance was found to still be effective in the alleviation of signs and symptoms in patients with TMD. Many patients in group C changed to a stabilization appliance at the 1 0-week follow-up, which significantly reduced the number of patients in this group. Most patients reported positive change in overall subjective symptoms in this trial. The stabilization appliance can therefore be recommended for patients with TMD. The aim of this study was to evaluate headaches before and after treatment with a stabilisation appliance and a control appliance in a randomised controlled trial in patients having temporomandibular disorders (TMD) of mainly arthrogenous origin. The effect of treatment was evaluated both in a short and in long-term perspective. 60 patients (mean age 30 years) with TMD of mainly arthrogenous origin were studied. The patients were selected from patients referred for treatment of TMD during a 3-year period to the Department of Stomathognathic Physiology, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University. The 60 patients included in the study were randomly assigned to a treatment (T) or a control (C) group. The study was performed as a randomised controlled trial including evaluation of treatment effect on tension-type headache after 10 weeks, 6 and 12 months. At the 10 weeks follow-up, the patients who reported a negative treatment outcome and/or discomfort associated with the use of the appliances had their appliances readjusted. Patients who demanded further treatment received a stabilisation appliance (21 patients from the C-group), creating a new mixed (M) group. All the 60 patients reported frequency of headache from rarely up to daily at the start of the study.

Literature Review

A search of the published medical literature revealed 1 study investigating the researchable question:

Disease.Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver

Level of evidence

A - Multiple high-quality studies with consistent results Read more→

Please see Table 1 for your response.

Enter title in bold, with all first words capitalized, and without a reference number
Design	Objective terms describing the type of study (randomized, uncontrolled, retrospective, placebo-controlled, cross-over, etc.); N= (total subjects)
Objective	State the objective (purpose) of the study using the author’s language(usually beginning with “To” and without a period, assuming a non-complete sentence)
Study Groups	Only the separate groups and their cohort number (n) should be listed. You can describe more details of the cohorts in the methods section so this section can stay very succinct.
Inclusion Criteria	Include relevant inclusion criteria (not a comprehensive list).
Exclusion Criteria	Include relevant exclusion criteria (not a comprehensive list).
Methods	This is our most important section. Data collection and any other information needed to understand the results is presented. Any loose ends from all other sections are tied up here, as concisely as possible.
Duration	Include the duration of the trial as a whole, as well as the duration of the interventions.
Outcome Measures	If the primary outcome measure isn’t explicit from the study, all outcome measures applicable to the inquiry can be listed in this section. If the primary outcome measure is explicit, then make separate sections for ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ Outcome Measures. All outcome measures listed should correlate directly/exactly with the results presented later.
Baseline Characteristics		A	B
	Age, years
	Female
	White
	---
	Include relevant baseline characteristics that will provide a general (big picture) view of the patients in the study.
Results	Endpoint	A	B	p-Value
	----
	----
	All results listed should correlate directly/exactly with the outcome measures presented previously.Results that do not have to do with the inquiry should not be included; just the stated outcomes need corresponding results. Tables are encouraged to display the most info using the least space/words.
Adverse Events	Common Adverse Events: (or those deemed frequent; if not listed in study, use N/A or “Not disclosed”)
	Serious Adverse Events: (or those deemed high risk; if not listed in study, use N/A or “Not disclosed”)
	Percentage that Discontinued due to Adverse Events: (if not listed in study, use N/A or “Not disclosed”)
Study Author Conclusions	Copy and paste the author’s conclusions on the question at hand, using full sentences. Don’t include any conclusions that don’t correspond to results we list.
InpharmD Researcher Critique	As the expert, add 1-2 sentences on strengths, weaknesses, and takeaways from this study. Focus on insight as “more research is needed” is obvious.