Cited by 34Temporomandibular Joint DisordersMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatmentOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatment versus osteopathy in the cranial field in temporomandibular disorders – a pilot study

Gesslbauer, Christina, Vavti, Nadja, Keilani, Mohammad, Mickel, Michael, Crevenna, Richard·2018·Disability and Rehabilitation

Abstract

PURPOSE: Temporomandibular disorders are a common musculoskeletal condition causing severe pain, physical and psychological disability. The effect and evidence of osteopathic manipulative treatment and osteopathy in the cranial field is scarce and their use are controversial. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatment and osteopathy in the cranial field in temporomandibular disorders. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial in patients with temporomandibular disorders was performed. Forty female subjects with long-term temporomandibular disorders (>3 months) were included. At enrollment, subjects were randomly assigned into two groups: (1) osteopathic manipulative treatment group (20 female patients) and (2) osteopathy in the cranial field group (20 female patients). Examination was performed at baseline (E0) and at the end of the last treatment (E1), consisting of subjective pain intensity with the Visual Analog Scale, Helkimo Index and SF-36 Health Survey. Subjects had five treatments, once a week. 36 subjects completed the study (33.7 ± 10.3 y). RESULTS: Patients in both groups showed significant reduction in Visual Analog Scale score (osteopathic manipulative treatment group: p = 0.001; osteopathy in the cranial field group: p< 0.001), Helkimo Index (osteopathic manipulative treatment group: p = 0.02; osteopathy in the cranial field group: p = 0.003) and a significant improvement in the SF-36 Health Survey - subscale "Bodily Pain" (osteopathic manipulative treatment group: p = 0.04; osteopathy in the cranial field group: p = 0.007) after five treatments (E1). All subjects (n = 36) also showed significant improvements in the above named parameters after five treatments (E1): Visual Analog Scale score (p< 0.001), Helkimo Index (p< 0.001), SF-36 Health Survey - subscale "Bodily Pain" (p = 0.001). The differences between the two groups were not statistically significant for any of the three target parameters. CONCLUSION: Both therapeutic modalities had similar clinical results. The findings of this pilot trial support the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment and osteopathy in the cranial field as an effective treatment modality in patients with temporomandibular disorders. The positive results in both treatment groups should encourage further research on osteopathic manipulative treatment and osteopathy in the cranial field and support the importance of an interdisciplinary collaboration in patients with temporomandibular disorders. Implications for rehabilitation Temporomandibular disorders are the second most prevalent musculoskeletal condition with a negative impact on physical and psychological factors. There are a variety of options to treat temporomandibular disorders. This pilot study demonstrates the reduction of pain, the improvement of temporomandibular joint dysfunction and the positive impact on quality of life after osteopathic manipulative treatment and osteopathy in the cranial field. Our findings support the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment and osteopathy in the cranial field and should encourage further research on osteopathic manipulative treatment and osteopathy in the cranial field in patients with temporomandibular disorders. Rehabilitation experts should consider osteopathic manipulative treatment and osteopathy in the cranial field as a beneficial treatment option for temporomandibular disorders.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09638288.2016.1269368

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. 2015, Pediatr Dent, 37, 78
  2. Yap AU, 2003, J Orofac Pain, 17, 21
  3. Plesh O, 2011, J Orofac Pain, 25, 25
  4. Bonjardim LR, 2005, Int J Prosthodont, 18, 347
  5. Matarán-Peñarrocha GA, 2011, Alternat Med, 2011, 178769
  6. Magoun HI., 1976, Osteopathy in the cranial field
  7. Degenhardt BF, 2007, J Am Osteopath Assoc, 107, 387
  8. McPartland JM, 2005, J Am Osteopath Assoc, 105, 283
  9. Ruffini N, 2015, Front Neurosci, 4, 272

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gesslbauer, C., Vavti, N., Keilani, M., Mickel, M., & Crevenna, R.
Affiliations
Medical University of Vienna (AT)
Corresponding author
Crevenna, Richard
Venue
Disability and Rehabilitation
Published
2016-12-28
Volume
40
Issue
6
Pages
631-636
ISSN
  • 0963-8288 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5165
OpenAlex
W2564808942
Cited by
34
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2
FWCI
0.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Disability and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Complementary and Manual Therapy › Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Myofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Keywords
temporomandibular disorders, osteopathic manipulative treatment, cranial osteopathy, osteopathy, pain intensity, Helkimo index, SF-36, quality of life, musculoskeletal pain, treatment effectiveness comparison, female patients, complementary therapy, manual therapy
MeSH terms
Adult, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Osteopathic Medicine, Pain Measurement, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Temporomandibular Joint Disorders, Treatment Outcome, Manipulation, Osteopathic, Musculoskeletal Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review