Arthrocentesis of the Temporomandibular Joint: Systematic Review and Clinical Implications of Research Findings.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Luca Guarda-Nardini, Andrè Mariz De Almeida, Daniele Manfredini
{"title":"Arthrocentesis of the Temporomandibular Joint: Systematic Review and Clinical Implications of Research Findings.","authors":"Luca Guarda-Nardini,&nbsp;Andrè Mariz De Almeida,&nbsp;Daniele Manfredini","doi":"10.11607/ofph.2606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To review randomized clinical trials on arthrocentesis for managing temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and to discuss the clinical implications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>On March 10, 2019, a systematic search of relevant articles published over the last 20 years was performed in PubMed, as well as in Scopus, the authors' personal libraries, and the reference lists of included articles. The focus question was: In patients with TMD (P), does TMJ arthrocentesis (I), compared to any control treatment (C), provide positive outcomes (O)?</p><p><strong>Results/conclusion: </strong>Thirty papers were included comparing TMJ arthrocentesis to other treatment protocols in patients with disc displacement without reduction and/or closed lock (n = 11), TMJ arthralgia and/or unspecific internal derangements (n = 8), or TMJ osteoarthritis (n = 11). In general, the consistency of the findings was poor because of the heterogenous study designs, and so caution is required when interpreting the meta-analyses. In summary, it can be suggested that TMJ arthrocentesis improves jaw function and reduces pain levels, and the execution of multiple sessions (three to five) is superior to a single session (effect size = 1.82). Comparison studies offer inconsistent findings, with the possible exception of the finding that splints are superior in managing TMJ pain (effect size = 1.36) compared to arthrocentesis, although this conclusion is drawn from very heterogenous studies (I<sup>2</sup> = 94%). The additional use of cortisone is not effective for improving outcomes, while hyaluronic acid or platelet-rich plasma positioning may have additional value according to some studies. The type of intervention, the baseline presence of MRI effusion, and the specific Axis I diagnosis do not seem to be important predictors of effectiveness, suggesting that, as in many pain medicine fields, efforts to identify predictors of treatment outcome should focus more on the patient (eg, age, psychosocial impairment) than the disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":48800,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache","volume":"35 1","pages":"17-29"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ofph.2606","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

Abstract

Aims: To review randomized clinical trials on arthrocentesis for managing temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and to discuss the clinical implications.

Methods: On March 10, 2019, a systematic search of relevant articles published over the last 20 years was performed in PubMed, as well as in Scopus, the authors' personal libraries, and the reference lists of included articles. The focus question was: In patients with TMD (P), does TMJ arthrocentesis (I), compared to any control treatment (C), provide positive outcomes (O)?

Results/conclusion: Thirty papers were included comparing TMJ arthrocentesis to other treatment protocols in patients with disc displacement without reduction and/or closed lock (n = 11), TMJ arthralgia and/or unspecific internal derangements (n = 8), or TMJ osteoarthritis (n = 11). In general, the consistency of the findings was poor because of the heterogenous study designs, and so caution is required when interpreting the meta-analyses. In summary, it can be suggested that TMJ arthrocentesis improves jaw function and reduces pain levels, and the execution of multiple sessions (three to five) is superior to a single session (effect size = 1.82). Comparison studies offer inconsistent findings, with the possible exception of the finding that splints are superior in managing TMJ pain (effect size = 1.36) compared to arthrocentesis, although this conclusion is drawn from very heterogenous studies (I2 = 94%). The additional use of cortisone is not effective for improving outcomes, while hyaluronic acid or platelet-rich plasma positioning may have additional value according to some studies. The type of intervention, the baseline presence of MRI effusion, and the specific Axis I diagnosis do not seem to be important predictors of effectiveness, suggesting that, as in many pain medicine fields, efforts to identify predictors of treatment outcome should focus more on the patient (eg, age, psychosocial impairment) than the disease.

颞下颌关节穿刺:系统回顾和研究结果的临床意义。
目的:回顾关节穿刺治疗颞下颌紊乱(TMD)的随机临床试验,并讨论其临床意义。方法:于2019年3月10日,系统检索PubMed、Scopus、作者个人图书馆以及收录文章的参考文献列表中近20年来发表的相关文章。焦点问题是:在TMD (P)患者中,与任何对照治疗(C)相比,TMJ关节穿刺(I)是否提供积极的结果(O)?结果/结论:纳入了30篇论文,比较了TMJ关节穿刺与其他治疗方案在未复位和/或闭锁椎间盘移位(n = 11)、TMJ关节痛和/或非特异性内部紊乱(n = 8)或TMJ骨关节炎(n = 11)患者中的应用。总的来说,由于研究设计的异质性,研究结果的一致性较差,因此在解释meta分析时需要谨慎。综上所述,可以认为TMJ关节穿刺改善了下颌功能并减少了疼痛水平,并且多次(3 - 5次)的执行优于单次(效应值= 1.82)。比较研究提供了不一致的结果,可能有一个例外,即夹板在治疗TMJ疼痛方面优于关节穿刺(效应值= 1.36),尽管这一结论来自非常不同的研究(I2 = 94%)。根据一些研究,额外使用可的松对改善预后没有效果,而透明质酸或富血小板血浆定位可能有额外的价值。干预类型、MRI渗出的基线存在和特定的轴I诊断似乎不是有效性的重要预测因素,这表明,正如在许多疼痛医学领域一样,确定治疗结果预测因素的努力应更多地关注患者(例如,年龄、社会心理障碍)而不是疾病。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache
Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Founded upon sound scientific principles, this journal continues to make important contributions that strongly influence the work of dental and medical professionals involved in treating oral and facial pain, including temporomandibular disorders, and headache. In addition to providing timely scientific research and clinical articles, the journal presents diagnostic techniques and treatment therapies for oral and facial pain, headache, mandibular dysfunction, and occlusion and covers pharmacology, physical therapy, surgery, and other pain-management methods.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信