Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Effects of SMT on mouth opening

From: The effect of spinal manipulative therapy on spinal range of motion: a systematic literature review

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