-
International Journal of Molecular... Jul 2021Temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) is a low-inflammatory disorder with multifactorial etiology. The aim of this review was to present the current state of...
Mechanisms of Action and Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid, Corticosteroids and Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Treatment of Temporomandibular Joint Osteoarthritis-A Systematic Review.
Temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) is a low-inflammatory disorder with multifactorial etiology. The aim of this review was to present the current state of knowledge regarding the mechanisms of action and the efficacy of hyaluronic acid (HA), corticosteroids (CS) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of TMJ OA.: The PubMed database was analyzed with the keywords: "(temporomandibular joint) AND ((osteoarthritis) OR (dysfunction) OR (disorders) OR (pain)) AND ((treatment) OR (arthrocentesis) OR (arthroscopy) OR (injection)) AND ((hyaluronic acid) OR (corticosteroid) OR (platelet rich plasma))". After screening of 363 results, 16 studies were included in this review. Arthrocentesis alone effectively reduces pain and improves jaw function in patients diagnosed with TMJ OA. Additional injections of HA, either low-molecular-weight (LMW) HA or high-molecular-weight (HMW) HA, or CS at the end of the arthrocentesis do not improve the final clinical outcomes. CS present several negative effects on the articular cartilage. Results related to additional PRP injections are not consistent and are rather questionable. Further studies should be multicenter, based on a larger group of patients and should answer the question of whether other methods of TMJ OA treatment are more beneficial for the patients than simple arthrocentesis.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Injections, Intra-Articular; Osteoarthritis; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Signal Transduction; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
PubMed: 34299024
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22147405 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Dec 2023What is the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)? (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CLINICAL QUESTION
What is the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)?
CURRENT PRACTICE
TMD are the second most common musculoskeletal chronic pain disorder after low back pain, affecting 6-9% of adults globally. TMD are associated with pain affecting the jaw and associated structures and may present with headaches, earache, clicking, popping, or crackling sounds in the temporomandibular joint, and impaired mandibular function. Current clinical practice guidelines are largely consensus-based and provide inconsistent recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
For patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months) associated with TMD, and compared with placebo or sham procedures, the guideline panel issued: (1) strong recommendations in favour of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with or without biofeedback or relaxation therapy, therapist-assisted mobilisation, manual trigger point therapy, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with or without manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, stretching, reassurance, and education); (2) conditional recommendations in favour of manipulation, supervised jaw exercise with mobilisation, CBT with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), manipulation with postural exercise, and acupuncture; (3) conditional recommendations against reversible occlusal splints (alone or in combination with other interventions), arthrocentesis (alone or in combination with other interventions), cartilage supplement with or without hyaluronic acid injection, low level laser therapy (alone or in combination with other interventions), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, gabapentin, botulinum toxin injection, hyaluronic acid injection, relaxation therapy, trigger point injection, acetaminophen (with or without muscle relaxants or NSAIDS), topical capsaicin, biofeedback, corticosteroid injection (with or without NSAIDS), benzodiazepines, and β blockers; and (4) strong recommendations against irreversible oral splints, discectomy, and NSAIDS with opioids.
HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED
An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel approached the formulation of recommendations from the perspective of patients, rather than a population or health system perspective.
THE EVIDENCE
Recommendations are informed by a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms of conservative, pharmacologic, and invasive interventions for chronic pain secondary to TMD.
UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION
These recommendations apply to patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months duration) associated with TMD as a group of conditions, and do not apply to the management of acute TMD pain. When considering management options, clinicians and patients should first consider strongly recommended interventions, then those conditionally recommended in favour, then conditionally against. In doing so, shared decision making is essential to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and preference, availability of interventions, and what they may have already tried. Further research is warranted and may alter recommendations in the future.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chronic Pain; Hyaluronic Acid; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
PubMed: 38101929
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-076227 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International Jan 2022Involvement of the temporomandibular joint can be shown in 40-90% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), although it is often...
BACKGROUND
Involvement of the temporomandibular joint can be shown in 40-90% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), although it is often asymptomatic. Restricted jaw mobility and jaw pain can be found in approximately 20% of patients with JIA (prevalence: 70 per 100 000 persons). Early diagnosis and treatment of the underlying disease are essential for a good outcome, but uniform, consensus-based management is still lacking.
METHODS
The clinical practice guideline is based on the findings of a systematic literature review in multiple databases and a Delphi procedure to obtain consensus on the recommendations.
RESULTS
Most of the identified studies were retrospective. Patients with JIA should undergo clinical screening with a structured examination protocol once per year in childhood and adolescence, and thereafter as well if the temporomandibular joint is involved. The diagnosis of chronic rheumatoid arthritis of the temporomandibular joint is established with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Conservative treatment (antirheumatic basal therapy, local measures) is unsuccessful in less than 10% of patients. In such cases, arthroscopy and arthrocentesis can be used for temporary symptom relief and functional improvement. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections should be given only once, and only in otherwise intractable cases. In severe cases where all other options have been exhausted (<1%), open surgical treatment can be considered, including alloplastic joint replacement.
CONCLUSION
Oligosymptomatic and asymptomatic cases are common even with radiologic evidence of marked joint damage. The possibility of rheumatic involvement of the temporomandibular joint must be kept in mind so that serious complications can be avoided. Regular clinical evaluation of the temporomandibular joint is recommended, particularly for patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.
Topics: Adolescent; Arthritis, Juvenile; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Retrospective Studies; Temporomandibular Joint; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
PubMed: 34874262
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0388 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Nov 2023This systematic review aimed to investigate and examine whether intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) after arthrocentesis are beneficial for the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aimed to investigate and examine whether intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) after arthrocentesis are beneficial for the treatment of temporomandibular disorders, when compared to other treatments, such as injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) or saline after arthrocentesis.
METHODS
An electronic search on PubMed was performed using combinations of the terms 'temporomandibular' and 'platelet rich plasma', to identify studies reported in English and published up until 2017. The initial screening identified 222 records, of which only seven fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Of these studies, three compared injection of PRP after arthrocentesis with the injection of HA after arthrocentesis, while two compared injection of PRP after arthrocentesis with Ringer's lactate after arthrocentesis and one compared injection of PRP after arthrocentesis to sodium chloride.
RESULTS
Five of the studies found that PRP injections have led to significant improvements in mandibular range of motion and pain intensity up to 12 months after treatment, while the remaining two studies found similar results for the different treatments.
CONCLUSION
However, a standardized protocol for PRP preparation and application needs to be established.
Topics: Humans; Treatment Outcome; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; Hyaluronic Acid; Injections, Intra-Articular; Arthrocentesis; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Temporomandibular Joint
PubMed: 37341166
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13545 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Oct 2022The aim of this study was to investigate the most effective lavage volume of arthrocentesis in the management of temporomandibular disorders. A comprehensive electronic... (Review)
Review
The aim of this study was to investigate the most effective lavage volume of arthrocentesis in the management of temporomandibular disorders. A comprehensive electronic search, based on the PRISMA guidelines, was performed, which included a computer search with specific keywords, a reference list search and a manual search. The inclusion criteria were the following: a randomized controlled trial, at least 20 subjects who underwent arthrocentesis, mention of the irrigation materials used for the arthrocentesis, mention of the irrigation volumes used for the arthrocentesis, MMO and pain measured as VAS or NRS, were reported as outcome figures, mention of a specific diagnosis or signs and symptoms, and inclusion of the data on the MMO or VAS/NRS at 6-month follow-up. Sixteen publications were enrolled in the meta-analysis, comparing arthrocentesis with a lavage volume <150 mL and arthrocentesis with a lavage volume ≥150 mL, in the efficacy of the improvement in the mouth opening and pain reduction. The results revealed the group with a lavage volume <150 mL had a greater improvement in the mouth opening and pain reduction. However, results are to be interpreted with caution, due to the paucity of the randomized controlled literature and other confounding factors. Further high-quality studies are required to provide a better conclusion to the treatment outcomes of the different lavage volumes.
PubMed: 36359466
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12112622 -
Cranio : the Journal of... May 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare outcomes between ultrasound (US)-guided arthrocentesis and conventional arthrocentesis for the management of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare outcomes between ultrasound (US)-guided arthrocentesis and conventional arthrocentesis for the management of temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs).
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Scopus, BioMed Central, CENTRAL, and Google scholar databases were searched up to April 1 2020 for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing US-guided and conventional arthrocentesis.
RESULTS
Four RCTs were included. Pooled analysis did not demonstrate any statistically significant difference in pain or maximal mouth opening (MMO) scores after 1 week and 1 month of follow-up between US-guided and conventional arthrocentesis. Studies also reported data on intra-operative needle relocations and operating time but with conflicting results.
CONCLUSION
This study indicates that the use of US during arthrocentesis may not improve postoperative pain and MMO in the short term. Data on intra-operative outcomes are scarce and conflicting for any definitive conclusions. Further high-quality adequately powered RCTs are required to strengthen current evidence.
Topics: Humans; Arthrocentesis; Temporomandibular Joint; Treatment Outcome; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Range of Motion, Articular
PubMed: 33044909
DOI: 10.1080/08869634.2020.1829870 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2023Temporomandibular joint disorders are a heterogenic group of clinical conditions, which impair physiological functioning of the masticatory system. Arthrocentesis of the... (Review)
Review
Temporomandibular joint disorders are a heterogenic group of clinical conditions, which impair physiological functioning of the masticatory system. Arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint has become a widely approved method for non-invasive treatment, bridging the gap between conservative and surgical approaches. Regardless of technique, treatment is based upon joint lavage and lysis of the inflammatory fibrous tissue adhesions, which, in turn, improves joint mobility and reduces pain and closed lock. Recently, approaches for intra-articular injections have been proposed as adjuvant or replacement therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the most efficient technique of arthrocentesis. A systematic search based on PRISMA guidelines, including a computer search with specific keywords, a reference list search and a manual search, was performed. Relevant articles were selected after three search rounds for final review. The studies pulled for the analysis presented information about the relevant predictors, including the technique of arthrocentesis (single- or two-needle method), fluid used for lavage (Ringer lactate or saline), volume of the fluid, application of the injectable, number of interventions, pain (VAS) and mouth opening scores (MMO) and follow-up. All cohorts showed improvement in mouth opening, but significant pain reduction was observed only in cohorts treated either by arthrocentesis alone or arthrocentesis followed by intra-articular injectables. Intra-articular injectables used alone failed to reduce pain post-operatively when compared to other cohorts. We concluded that both double-needle and single-puncture arthrocentesis techniques are equally efficient. Application of the adjuvant injectable did not improve the outcomes of arthrocentesis performed alone. The volume of the fluid used for joint lavage and its chemical composition were not significant in clinical outcomes. However, due to the lack of homogeneity in the study settings, a meta-analysis could not be applied and a systematic review was conducted. We still, however, state that there is a knowledge gap in the current literature regarding the use of injectables alone, as well as a longitudinal follow-up, which provides information about treatment efficiency. More high-quality and randomized controlled trials are required to shed light on this subject.
PubMed: 37445474
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12134439 -
Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism Apr 2016The objective was to assess the efficacy of ultrasound-guided (USG) versus landmark (LM) knee arthrocentesis in adults with knee pain or effusion. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The objective was to assess the efficacy of ultrasound-guided (USG) versus landmark (LM) knee arthrocentesis in adults with knee pain or effusion.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed until August 2015. All controlled trials reporting the accuracy or clinical efficacy between USG and LM knee joint arthrocentesis were selected. Pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) using the D-L fixed models for continuous outcomes and the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes were assessed by meta-analysis. Heterogeneity between studies was estimated by I(2) statistic.
RESULTS
Nine studies including 715 adult patients (725 knee joints) were eligible for this review versus LM group; there was a statistically significant difference in favor of USG for knee arthrocentesis accuracy rate (risk ratio = 1.21; 95% CI: 1.13-1.29; P < 0.001; I(2) = 37%), lower procedural pain scores (WMD = -2.24; 95% CI: -2.92 to -1.56; P < 0.001; I(2) = 4%), more aspiration volume (WMD = 17.06; 95% CI: 5.98-28.13; P = 0.003; I(2) = 57%), and decreased pain score 2 weeks after injection (WMD = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.42-1.27; P < 0.001; I(2) = 0). There was no statistically significant difference in procedural duration between two groups (WMD = -0.8; 95% CI: -2.24 to 0.74; P = 0.31; I(2) = 0).
CONCLUSIONS
Ultrasound-guided knee joint arthrocentesis offer a significantly greater accuracy and clinical improvement over landmark technique in adults with knee pain or joint effusion.
Topics: Arthrocentesis; Humans; Injections, Intra-Articular; Knee Joint; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 26791571
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2015.10.011 -
Rheumatology International Oct 2023For knee osteoarthritis and related conditions, analysis of biomarkers hold promise to improve early diagnosis and/or offer patient-specific treatment. To compare... (Review)
Review
For knee osteoarthritis and related conditions, analysis of biomarkers hold promise to improve early diagnosis and/or offer patient-specific treatment. To compare biomarker analyses, reliable, high-quality biopsies are needed. The aim of this work is to summarize the literature on the current best practices of biopsy of the synovium and synovial fluid arthrocentesis. Therefore, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles that applied, demonstrated, or evaluated synovial biopsies or arthrocentesis. Expert recommendations and applications were summarized, and evidence for superiority of techniques was evaluated. Thirty-one studies were identified for inclusion. For arthrocentesis, the superolateral approach in a supine position, with a 0°-30° knee flexion was generally recommended. 18-gage needles, mechanical compression and ultrasound-guidance were found to give superior results. For blind and image-guided synovial biopsy techniques, superolateral and infrapatellar approaches were recommended. Single-handed tools were preconized, including Parker-Pearson needles and forceps. Sample quantity ranged approximately from 2 to 20. Suggestions were compiled for arthrocentesis regarding approach portal and patient position. Further evidence regarding needle size, ultrasound-guidance and mechanical compression were found. More comparative studies are needed before evidence-based protocols can be developed.
Topics: Humans; Arthrocentesis; Synovial Fluid; Knee Joint; Biopsy; Synovial Membrane
PubMed: 36513849
DOI: 10.1007/s00296-022-05256-4 -
International Journal of Oral and... Jun 2024The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of arthroscopy compared to arthrocentesis and to conservative treatments for temporomandibular joint... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Arthroscopy versus arthrocentesis and versus conservative treatments for temporomandibular joint disorders: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of arthroscopy compared to arthrocentesis and to conservative treatments for temporomandibular joint disorders. Thirteen controlled studies on various patient outcomes were included after a systematic search in seven electronic databases. Meta-analyses were conducted separately for arthroscopic surgery (AS) and arthroscopic lysis and lavage (ALL), and short-term (<6 months), intermediate-term (6 months to 5 years), and long-term (≥5 years) follow-up periods were considered. No significant differences in pain reduction and complication rates were found between AS or ALL and arthrocentesis. Regarding improvement in maximum mouth opening (MMO), both AS at intermediate-term and ALL at short-term follow-up were equally efficient when compared to arthrocentesis. However, at intermediate-term follow-up, ALL was superior to arthrocentesis for MMO improvement (mean difference 4.9 mm, 95% confidence interval 2.7-7.1 mm). Trial sequential analysis supported the conclusion of the meta-analysis for MMO improvement for ALL versus arthrocentesis studies at intermediate-term follow-up, but not for the other meta-analyses. Insufficient evidence exists to draw conclusions regarding other patient outcomes or about comparisons between arthroscopy and conservative treatments. Due to the low quality of the primary studies, further research is warranted before final conclusions can be drawn regarding the management of temporomandibular joint disorders.
Topics: Humans; Arthroscopy; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; Arthrocentesis; Conservative Treatment
PubMed: 38286713
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2024.01.006