Skip to main content
. 2025 Apr 16;47(3):cjaf024. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjaf024

Table 1.

Characteristics of the evidence found on the effectiveness of OMT according to target OMDs and respective levels of evidence.

Target OMDs Studies and designs Comparisons and best evidence founda Level of evidence and interpretationb

Malocclusion (Angle’s Class I, II, and III) associated OMDs

  • 7 studies

  • 452 participants

  • 261 treated with OMT

 Before-and-after [25]
Prospective cohort (single arm) [24]
Retrospective cohort (two arms) [20]
Non-RCT [22]
RCT [18]
Systematic reviewc [8, 26]

  1. OMT vs. no treatment (one before-and-after study [25]).

  2. OMT with preformed myofunctional appliance vs. no treatment (one non-RCT [22])

  3. OMT associated with orthodontic treatment vs. orthodontic treatment alone (one small RCT [18] with important limitations tested Headgear; one retrospective cohort [20] tested Twin Block)

  1. Level of evidence 4 (inconclusive)

  2. Level of evidence 3 (plausible)

  3. Level of evidence 3 (plausible)

Anterior open bite associated OMDs

  • 10 studies

  • 189 participants

  • 112 treated with OMT

 Before-and-after [15, 16, 31]
Retrospective cohort [7, 21]
RCT [32]
Narrative review [33]
Systematic reviewc [17, 34, 35]

  1. OMT vs. no treatment (one small RCT [32] with important limitations, in short term).

  2. OMT with orthodontic treatment vs. orthodontic treatment alone (one retrospective cohort [7]).

  1. Level of evidence 3 (plausible)

  2. Level of evidence 3 (plausible)

Post-orthognathic surgery associated OMDs

  • 7 studies

  • 238 participants

  • 113 treated with OMT

 Retrospective cohort [23]
Non-RCT [36–39]
RCT [40, 41]

  1. OMT (traditional) vs. no treatment (two small RCTs [40, 41])

  2. OMT (mastication exercises with hard chewing gum) vs. no treatment (three non-RCTs [36, 37, 39]).

  1. Level of evidence 2 (plausible)

  2. Level of evidence 3 (plausible)

Note: descriptive characteristics of included studies for each target OMD are displayed in Supplementary Tables 1 to 3.

aIn bold letters, the favored treatment (P < .05). Comparisons not highlighted indicate no difference between interventions. Inconclusive results were not highlighted, even in the occurrence of statistically significant differences.

bThe best evidence found for each comparison identified. Only studies in which OMT effectiveness could be evaluated individually were considered to determine the level of evidence.

cThese Systematic reviews did not contribute to determining the level of evidence (see the main text for details).