双穿刺与单穿刺关节穿刺:一项随访3年的随机对照试验。

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Eduardo Grossmann, Rodrigo Lorenzi Poluha
{"title":"双穿刺与单穿刺关节穿刺:一项随访3年的随机对照试验。","authors":"Eduardo Grossmann, Rodrigo Lorenzi Poluha","doi":"10.11607/ofph.3074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The two arthrocentesis methods tested were both effective in reducing VAS scores and increasing MID in patients with DDWOR.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"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":"{\"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\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The two arthrocentesis methods tested were both effective in reducing VAS scores and increasing MID in patients with DDWOR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"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\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/ofph.3074\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ofph.3074","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

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

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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