Double-Puncture Versus Single-Puncture Arthrocentesis: A Randomized Controlled Trial with 3 Years of Follow-Up.

IF 1.9 3区医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache Pub Date : 2022-02-01 DOI:10.11607/ofph.3074

Eduardo Grossmann, Rodrigo Lorenzi Poluha

{"title":"Double-Puncture Versus Single-Puncture Arthrocentesis: A Randomized Controlled Trial with 3 Years of Follow-Up.","authors":"Eduardo Grossmann, Rodrigo Lorenzi Poluha","doi":"10.11607/ofph.3074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: To compare the clinical effectiveness of conventional double-puncture vs single-puncture type 2 arthrocentesis for management of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disc displacement without reduction (DDWOR) after 3 years of follow-up.Methods: A total of 26 patients with DDWOR were randomly and blindly allocated into two treatment groups (n = 13 each): group 1 = conventional double-puncture arthrocentesis; group 2 = single-puncture type 2 arthrocentesis. Data on gender, side of painful joint complaint, age (years), duration of joint pain (months), maximum interincisal distance (MID, mm), and pain intensity (self-reported with a 0-10 visual analog scale [VAS]) were collected. VAS scores and MID were measured before (baseline) and 3 years after (final) the arthrocentesis.Results: Twenty-three patients completed the study (group 1, n = 11; group 2, n = 12). Both techniques resulted in significantly reduced VAS scores and increased MID (P = .001) after the 3 years of follow-up; however, there were no statistically significant differences between techniques (P > 0.05).Conclusion: The two arthrocentesis methods tested were both effective in reducing VAS scores and increasing MID in patients with DDWOR.","PeriodicalId":48800,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache","volume":"36 2","pages":"141-146"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10586577/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ofph.3074","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: 0

Abstract

Aims: To compare the clinical effectiveness of conventional double-puncture vs single-puncture type 2 arthrocentesis for management of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disc displacement without reduction (DDWOR) after 3 years of follow-up.

Methods: A total of 26 patients with DDWOR were randomly and blindly allocated into two treatment groups (n = 13 each): group 1 = conventional double-puncture arthrocentesis; group 2 = single-puncture type 2 arthrocentesis. Data on gender, side of painful joint complaint, age (years), duration of joint pain (months), maximum interincisal distance (MID, mm), and pain intensity (self-reported with a 0-10 visual analog scale [VAS]) were collected. VAS scores and MID were measured before (baseline) and 3 years after (final) the arthrocentesis.

Results: Twenty-three patients completed the study (group 1, n = 11; group 2, n = 12). Both techniques resulted in significantly reduced VAS scores and increased MID (P = .001) after the 3 years of follow-up; however, there were no statistically significant differences between techniques (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: The two arthrocentesis methods tested were both effective in reducing VAS scores and increasing MID in patients with DDWOR.

查看原文本刊更多论文

双穿刺与单穿刺关节穿刺:一项随访3年的随机对照试验。

目的:比较常规双穿刺与单穿刺2型关节穿刺治疗颞下颌关节(TMJ)椎间盘不复位移位(DDWOR) 3年随访后的临床疗效。方法:将26例DDWOR患者随机、盲目分为两组，每组13例:组1 =常规双穿刺关节穿刺术;2组=单穿刺2型关节穿刺。收集性别、关节疼痛主诉部位、年龄(岁)、关节疼痛持续时间(月)、最大内切距离(MID, mm)和疼痛强度(用0-10视觉模拟量表[VAS]自我报告)的数据。分别在关节穿刺前(基线)和术后3年(最终)测量VAS评分和MID。结果:23例患者完成了研究(第一组，n = 11;第二组，n = 12)。随访3年后，两种技术均显著降低了VAS评分，增加了MID (P = 0.001);两种技术间差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。结论:两种关节穿刺方法均能有效降低DDWOR患者的VAS评分，提高MID。

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 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

4.00%

发文量

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.