{"title":"前瞻治疗颞下颌关节疾病的临床疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Antonios Saramantos, Athanassios Kyrgidis, Gregorios Venetis, Georgios Hatziantoniou, Anestis Chrysostomidis, Chrysanthi Sardeli, Ioannis Tilaveridis","doi":"10.3390/clinpract15030051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) encompass a group of conditions characterized by anatomical, histological, and/or functional abnormalities that affect the muscular and/or articular components of the temporomandibular joint. Prolotherapy is an injectable treatment modality for chronic musculoskeletal pain that involves dextrose solution administration in the joint. <b>Aims:</b> To summarize, the aims involve considering the existing quality of clinical evidence on the efficacy of prolotherapy versus placebo and other active comparators, such as autologous blood products or botulinum toxin, in improving the outcomes of TMDs. <b>Methods:</b> A literature search in MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed, following the PRISMA statement guidelines, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with TMDs receiving prolotherapy. The maximal incisor opening (MIO), visual analogue score (VAS) for pain, and frequency of dislocations were analyzed as the outcomes. The weighted mean difference was used to pool outcomes. The risk of bias was recorded for the included studies. <b>Results:</b> Six studies comparing prolotherapy to placebo were identified. Prolotherapy is uniformly more efficient in reducing the VAS for pain when compared to the placebo (mean difference = 1.20, 95%CI: 0.56-1.84, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Perceived jaw mobility was improved among prolotherapy patients, (mean difference = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.05-0.90, <i>p</i> = 0.003) when compared to the placebo. A beneficial effect for prolotherapy with regard to MIO (mean difference = 0.84, 95%CI: -2.12-3.80, <i>p</i> = 0.58) was not confirmed. Prolotherapy appears to be more efficient than autologous blood products in reducing VAS for pain (mean difference = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.11-0.87, <i>p</i> = 0.01). Prolotherapy was found to be more effective in reducing pain, MIO, and clicking when compared to an occlusal splint in a single study. <b>Conclusions:</b> Prolotherapy is also a promising modality for TMDs, despite the limited number of randomized clinical trials. Existing evidence supports its use to reduce TMD-related pain, even against other modalities. Further research is needed to better describe the benefit of prolotherapy for other outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":45306,"journal":{"name":"Clinics and Practice","volume":"15 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11941112/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Efficacy of Prolotherapy for Temporomandibular Joint Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Antonios Saramantos, Athanassios Kyrgidis, Gregorios Venetis, Georgios Hatziantoniou, Anestis Chrysostomidis, Chrysanthi Sardeli, Ioannis Tilaveridis\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/clinpract15030051\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) encompass a group of conditions characterized by anatomical, histological, and/or functional abnormalities that affect the muscular and/or articular components of the temporomandibular joint. Prolotherapy is an injectable treatment modality for chronic musculoskeletal pain that involves dextrose solution administration in the joint. <b>Aims:</b> To summarize, the aims involve considering the existing quality of clinical evidence on the efficacy of prolotherapy versus placebo and other active comparators, such as autologous blood products or botulinum toxin, in improving the outcomes of TMDs. <b>Methods:</b> A literature search in MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed, following the PRISMA statement guidelines, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with TMDs receiving prolotherapy. The maximal incisor opening (MIO), visual analogue score (VAS) for pain, and frequency of dislocations were analyzed as the outcomes. The weighted mean difference was used to pool outcomes. The risk of bias was recorded for the included studies. <b>Results:</b> Six studies comparing prolotherapy to placebo were identified. Prolotherapy is uniformly more efficient in reducing the VAS for pain when compared to the placebo (mean difference = 1.20, 95%CI: 0.56-1.84, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Perceived jaw mobility was improved among prolotherapy patients, (mean difference = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.05-0.90, <i>p</i> = 0.003) when compared to the placebo. A beneficial effect for prolotherapy with regard to MIO (mean difference = 0.84, 95%CI: -2.12-3.80, <i>p</i> = 0.58) was not confirmed. Prolotherapy appears to be more efficient than autologous blood products in reducing VAS for pain (mean difference = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.11-0.87, <i>p</i> = 0.01). Prolotherapy was found to be more effective in reducing pain, MIO, and clicking when compared to an occlusal splint in a single study. <b>Conclusions:</b> Prolotherapy is also a promising modality for TMDs, despite the limited number of randomized clinical trials. Existing evidence supports its use to reduce TMD-related pain, even against other modalities. Further research is needed to better describe the benefit of prolotherapy for other outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinics and Practice\",\"volume\":\"15 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11941112/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinics and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract15030051\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract15030051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:颞下颌关节疾病(TMDs)包括一组以解剖学、组织学和/或功能异常为特征的疾病,这些疾病影响颞下颌关节的肌肉和/或关节成分。Prolotherapy是一种用于慢性肌肉骨骼疼痛的注射治疗方式,涉及关节中的葡萄糖溶液管理。综上所述,本研究的目的包括考虑前驱治疗相对于安慰剂和其他活性比较物(如自体血液制品或肉毒杆菌毒素)在改善tmd预后方面的疗效的现有临床证据质量。方法:根据PRISMA声明指南,在MEDLINE、Scopus和Cochrane数据库中进行文献检索,以确定接受前驱治疗的tmd患者的随机对照试验(rct)。以最大切牙开度(MIO)、疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)和脱位频率作为观察结果。加权平均差异用于汇总结果。对纳入研究的偏倚风险进行记录。结果:有6项研究将前驱治疗与安慰剂进行了比较。与安慰剂相比,前体治疗在降低疼痛VAS方面一致更有效(平均差异= 1.20,95%CI: 0.56-1.84, p < 0.001)。与安慰剂相比,前驱治疗患者的下颌活动能力得到改善(平均差异= 0.47,95%CI: 0.05-0.90, p = 0.003)。未证实前驱治疗对MIO的有益效果(平均差异= 0.84,95%CI: -2.12-3.80, p = 0.58)。前体治疗似乎比自体血液制品在减少疼痛VAS方面更有效(平均差异= 0.49,95%CI: 0.11-0.87, p = 0.01)。在一项研究中发现,与咬合夹板相比,Prolotherapy在减轻疼痛、MIO和咔嗒声方面更有效。结论:尽管随机临床试验数量有限,但前驱疗法也是一种有希望的治疗tmd的方式。现有证据支持其用于减少与tmd相关的疼痛,甚至与其他模式相比。需要进一步的研究来更好地描述前驱治疗对其他结果的益处。
Clinical Efficacy of Prolotherapy for Temporomandibular Joint Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Background: Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) encompass a group of conditions characterized by anatomical, histological, and/or functional abnormalities that affect the muscular and/or articular components of the temporomandibular joint. Prolotherapy is an injectable treatment modality for chronic musculoskeletal pain that involves dextrose solution administration in the joint. Aims: To summarize, the aims involve considering the existing quality of clinical evidence on the efficacy of prolotherapy versus placebo and other active comparators, such as autologous blood products or botulinum toxin, in improving the outcomes of TMDs. Methods: A literature search in MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed, following the PRISMA statement guidelines, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with TMDs receiving prolotherapy. The maximal incisor opening (MIO), visual analogue score (VAS) for pain, and frequency of dislocations were analyzed as the outcomes. The weighted mean difference was used to pool outcomes. The risk of bias was recorded for the included studies. Results: Six studies comparing prolotherapy to placebo were identified. Prolotherapy is uniformly more efficient in reducing the VAS for pain when compared to the placebo (mean difference = 1.20, 95%CI: 0.56-1.84, p < 0.001). Perceived jaw mobility was improved among prolotherapy patients, (mean difference = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.05-0.90, p = 0.003) when compared to the placebo. A beneficial effect for prolotherapy with regard to MIO (mean difference = 0.84, 95%CI: -2.12-3.80, p = 0.58) was not confirmed. Prolotherapy appears to be more efficient than autologous blood products in reducing VAS for pain (mean difference = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.11-0.87, p = 0.01). Prolotherapy was found to be more effective in reducing pain, MIO, and clicking when compared to an occlusal splint in a single study. Conclusions: Prolotherapy is also a promising modality for TMDs, despite the limited number of randomized clinical trials. Existing evidence supports its use to reduce TMD-related pain, even against other modalities. Further research is needed to better describe the benefit of prolotherapy for other outcomes.