Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 13, 2026

Studying Orthodontic Tooth Movement in Mice
Published on: August 2, 2024
Treating Temporomandibular Disorders Through Orthodontics: A Scoping Review of Evidence, Gaps, and Clinical Guidance
Man Hung1,2,3,4,5,6, Jacob Daniel Gardner1, Samantha Lee1
1College of Dental Medicine DMD Program, Roseman University of Health Sciences, South Jordan, UT 84095, USA.
Abstract:
Introduction: Evidence on orthodontic interventions for temporomandibular disorders (TMD) is fragmented and inconclusive, creating a gap in guidance for clinical decision-making. This study addresses that gap by evaluating current knowledge on these interventions. Methods: A PRISMA-ScR scoping review was conducted with a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (2018-2023). Eligible studies were peer-reviewed, English-language, human studies examining TMD treatment and/or etiology. Three independent reviewers screened records and extracted data and a fourth reviewer performed random audits. Results: Of 899 records, 10 studies met inclusion criteria (non-surgical, n = 7: 4 case reports, 2 prospective, 1 longitudinal; combined orthodontic-surgical, n = 3: 1 case report, 2 longitudinal; participant ages 15-71 years). Diagnostics included imaging, clinical examination, occlusal analysis, and questionnaires, although few used RDC/TMD or DC/TMD criteria. Non-surgical orthodontic modalities (fixed appliances, camouflage, TADs, stabilization splints) showed mixed results, with several studies reporting short-term symptom improvement, while others found no effect on TMD onset or progression. Combined orthodontic-surgical approaches (e.g., bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, Le Fort I) also showed variable outcomes. Conclusions: Low-to-moderate quality evidence suggests that orthodontic-surgical interventions may alleviate TMD symptoms in select patients; however, heterogeneity and limited use of standardized diagnostics constrain the certainty of these findings. Future research should prioritize DC/TMD-based diagnostics, core outcomes, comparative designs, and ≥12-24 months of follow-up to identify prognostic factors and responsive subgroups.

