Table 2. Tabular description of the technical, statistical, and inferential data as assessed from the selected studies.

TMD: temporomandibular disorder, df: degrees of freedom, OR: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval, TMJ: temporomandibular joint, SD: standard deviation, FMA: Frankfort-mandibular plane angle

Study ID	Study design	Primary objectives	Groups involved	Assessment period	Statistics observed	Results obtained
Al-Groosh et al. [15]	Cross-sectional	Assessment of knowledge regarding TMD treatment using orthodontic approach among clinicians	3 (oral medicine specialists, orthodontists, and oral surgeons)	10 weeks	df=4, p=0.001	75% of the orthodontists disagreed that orthodontic treatment could lead to TMDs, whereas 50% of the oral surgeons and 66.7% of oral medicine specialists believed otherwise.
Khayat et al. [16]	Prospective	Assessment of deep bite and crossbite in TMD sufferers	2 (TMD and TMD-free groups)	12.21 months (median)	p<0.001, OR=1.598, 95% CI: 1.212-2.106	Dental wear was reported to be mild in 68% and severe in 32% of the sufferers who had a deep bite; no such correlation was found in cases of crossbite.
Macri et al. [17]	Cross-sectional	Assessment of TMD incidence in children and adolescents on the basis of occlusal variables	2 (one group was investigated in Italy and one in Spain)	Unspecified	χ2=3.951, p=0.047	43% of the patients reported deep bite incidence, with overjet and Angle’s class I malocclusion reported in 41% and 37% of sufferers, respectively.
Paco et al. [18]	Observational	Assessment of cephalometric and craniofacial variables one year post-orthodontic treatment	2 (pre-orthodontic treatment and post-orthodontic treatment)	1 year	2.62±6.24, p=0.031, and 2.14±7.10, p=0.11	The majority of the individuals exhibited significant changes in terms of the craniofacial angles and hyoid position.
Radej et al. [19]	Cross-sectional	Analyzing cephalometric measurements for the prediction of condyle movement and centric relation among TMD patients	2 (patients with negligible TMJ symptoms and patients with more significant symptoms)	2 weeks	0.35±0.69 (mean and SD), p=0.041	Negligible displacement of condylar position in different spatial angles was recorded by cephalometric analysis.
Yan et al. [20]	Cross-sectional	Assessment of the correlation between TMD and craniofacial metrics in orthodontic patients	2 (TMD and TMD-free groups)	14 months	122.91±5.10, 123.26±4.41, 122.59±5.64, p=0.378	FMA and facial metrics were significantly larger in TMD patients than in TMD-free ones.
Yap et al. [21]	Cross-sectional	Assessment of TMD prevalence in orthodontic patients and its impact on their quality of life	5 (groups divided based on TMD severity)	Unspecified	Mean±SD: 37.29±9.23, 21.71 ± 9.41; median: 38 (19.00), 21 (16.00)	66.67% of the patients reported TMD symptoms, with a prevalence of different types of pain being significantly high.
Ye et al. [22]	Cross-sectional	Assessment of the psychological aspect of TMD in pre-orthodontic patients	2 (TMD and TMD-free groups)	6 months	2.12±3.16, 1.67±2.95, 2.98±3.37, p<0.001	Depression was the most significant factor in TMD patients, while intra-articular TMD patients showed vulnerability to anxiety symptoms.
Zhai et al. [23]	Retrospective	Assessment of orthodontic treatment compared to surgical interventions for managing TMD	2 (orthodontic treatment group and surgical treatment group)	7 years	OR=26.876, p=0.008; OR=10.774, p<0.001	No significant changes were observed between the groups; however, the surgical group exhibited an overall shorter treatment time.