Table 3.
Effects of SMT on mouth opening
| Author | Quality score /100 | Treatment and control activity (sham, other or nothing) | Preintervention in mm | Postintervention in mm | Change of score in mm | Summarized results given by authors | Were the differences in outcome tested between groups and were they significant? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oliveira Campello
[35] |
92 |
- SMT atlanto-occipital (n=41) - Soft occipital tissue treatment (n=41) - Nothing (n=40) |
46.4 ± 6.8 (44.4, 48.4) 47.2 ± 6.2 (45.2, 49.3) 46.8 ± 6.8 (44.8, 48.9) |
47.9 ± 6.8 (45.9, 49.9) 47.7 ± 6.1 (45.6, 49.7) 46.8 ± 6.7 (44.8, 48.9) |
1.5 ± 1.5 (1.0, 1.9) 0.5 ± 1.7 (0.0, 1.0) 0.0 ± 1.1 (−0.4, 0.3) |
SMT increases maximum active mouth opening, but need of further studies to elucidate the clinical relevance of that. |
Yes and yes |
| Mansilla-Ferragut [34] | 69 | - SMT atlanto-occipital (n=18 ) - Sham (cervical manual contact) (n=19 ) | 35.4 (95% CI, 33.3-37.4) 36.2 (95% CI, 34.3- 38.2) | 38.8 (95% CI, 36.6-41.1) 35.9 (95% CI, 33.7-38.0) | 3.5 (95% CI, 2.4, 4.6) −0.3 (95% CI, -0.4, 1.2) | SMT increases maximum active mouth opening. | Yes and yes |