-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
JSES International Sep 2023Periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder (PJI) is a devastating complication with a reported incidence of 1%-15.4% and is often difficult to diagnose with current... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder (PJI) is a devastating complication with a reported incidence of 1%-15.4% and is often difficult to diagnose with current diagnostic tools including serologic tests and arthrocentesis. This systematic review evaluates the reliability and validity of arthroscopic biopsy in the current literature for the diagnosis of shoulder PJI.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases were queried electronically from inception to June 2022 for publications reporting diagnostic accuracy of shoulder arthroscopic biopsy for detecting infection after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, shoulder hemiarthroplasty, or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. This systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
RESULTS
After exclusion, our meta-analysis consisted of 7 articles with a total of 112 patients. The estimated pooled sensitivity and specificity of arthroscopic biopsy for confirmation of shoulder periprosthetic infection were 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.95) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.67-0.88), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were 4.15 (95% CI: 2.57, 6.70) and 0.17 (95% CI: 0.08, 0.36), respectively. The aggregate positive predictive value was 73.58% (95% CI: 63.29%-81.82%), and aggregate negative predictive value was 89.83% (95% CI: 80.59%-94.95%). The diagnostic odds ratio of arthroscopic biopsy was 19.92 (95% CI: 4.96-79.99).
CONCLUSION
Arthroscopic biopsy in patients suspected of shoulder PJI has good diagnostic accuracy, with high sensitivity and specificity. Given the various biopsy protocols (such as devices, numbers, locations, etc.), further prospective studies are necessary to define the future role of arthroscopic biopsy in diagnosis and treatment.
PubMed: 37719814
DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2023.05.004 -
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 -
Cureus Mar 2024Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) is a multifaceted disorder impacting the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), causing substantial discomfort and functional limitations. This... (Review)
Review
Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) is a multifaceted disorder impacting the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), causing substantial discomfort and functional limitations. This systematic review aims to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of non-invasive treatment modalities for TMJ dysfunction, prioritizing a definitive protocol to ensure patient safety and enhance quality of life. Employing the PRISMA guidelines, we meticulously analyzed 20 studies from a pool of 1,417 articles sourced from databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and Medline. These studies underscore the multifarious nature of TMD and the varied responses to treatments such as physical therapy, laser therapy, ultrasound and electrical stimulation, splint therapy, injections, and arthrocentesis. Notably, the review highlights the paramount importance of precise diagnosis, often through surface electromyography, followed by a tailored treatment approach integrating manual therapy, counseling, and splint therapy. The systematic analysis revealed that while certain treatments such as transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and low-level laser therapy showed limited efficacy, combination therapies, especially those involving manual therapy, counseling, and splint therapy, demonstrated substantial improvement in reducing pain, depression, and anxiety. The findings advocate for a non-invasive, patient-centric approach, emphasizing education and symptom management before considering more invasive procedures such as injections and arthrocentesis. The review identifies the need for more comprehensive, longitudinal studies to establish a standardized, evidence-based treatment protocol for TMJ dysfunction, aiming to improve patient outcomes holistically.
PubMed: 38646388
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.56713 -
Head & Face Medicine Aug 2023This study aims to compare the efficacy of intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) for treating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative effectiveness of hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma, and platelet-rich fibrin in treating temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to compare the efficacy of intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) for treating temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and summarize their mechanisms of action.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until November 13, 2021, were identified using electronic and manual searches. Each study was evaluated for the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The studies found via searches were categorized by follow-up time (1, 3, or 6 months). Evidence quality was graded according to the GRADE system.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs were included that involved 421 patients with TMD. The network meta-analysis showed that all treatment groups improved compared to the placebo groups in terms of pain and maximal mouth opening (MMO). For pain evaluated via the visual analog scale, PRF exhibited better analgesic effects than PRP or HA after 1 and 3 months. PRP appeared to be more effective than PRF was after 6 months but there were no statistically significant differences between the two. For MMO, the effect of PRP was superior to those of PRF and HA after 1 month. However, after 3 and 6 months, PRF provided more encouraging results in improving MMO.
CONCLUSION
PRP and PRF exhibited similar short-term efficacy in treating TMD, while PRF was more advantageous in terms of long-term efficacy. Therefore, PRF was recommended for treating TMD.
Topics: Humans; Platelet-Rich Fibrin; Hyaluronic Acid; Network Meta-Analysis; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Pain; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
PubMed: 37633896
DOI: 10.1186/s13005-023-00369-y -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Jul 2023Over the past few years, researchers have investigated whether varying menstrual statuses and oestrogen levels could affect the likelihood of temporomandibular disorders... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Over the past few years, researchers have investigated whether varying menstrual statuses and oestrogen levels could affect the likelihood of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), with conflicting results. While some studies suggest a potential link between increased oestrogen levels and higher TMD risk, others have found no correlation. It is worth noting that oestrogen levels can impact the structure and function of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). In the light of these findings, our study seeks to investigate the prevalence of TMDs among pregnant women.
METHODS
We searched in PubMed, Web of Science and Lilacs for articles published from the inception until 20 January 2023. We applied the Population, Exposure, Comparator and Outcomes (PECO) model to assess the document eligibility: (P) Participants: female human subjects. (E) Exposure: pregnancy. (C) Comparison: pregnant women compared to non-pregnant women in the childbearing age. (O) Outcome: TMDs diagnosis. Only study providing data about the prevalence in both group (pregnant and non-pregnant) were included. We set the following exclusion criteria: (1) diagnosis of rheumatic diseases or chronic inflammatory disorders (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile, idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis); (2) diagnosis of fibromyalgia; (3) congenital abnormality or neoplastic conditions in the TMJ region; (4) studies including subjects undergoing arthrocentesis or intra-articular infiltrations; (5) studies including local pressure pain assessment; (6) studies including women in menopause in the control group (7) cross-over study design; (8) language different from English; (9) full- text unavailability (i.e. posters and conference abstracts); (10) studies involving animals; (11) review (topical or systematic) article; (12) case reports/series; (13) studies evaluating TMDs prevalence in subjects not pregnant. The software Review Manager version 5.2.8 (Cochrane Collaboration) was used to perform the pooled analysis. We measured the risk ratio (RR) between the two groups (pregnant and non-pregnant).
RESULTS
The included subjects in this review were 440. Among them, 244 were pregnant while the remaining 196 were age matched non-pregnant women. Among those pregnant 102 presented sign/symptoms of TMD or TMD diagnosis (41.8%) whereas 80 of those not pregnant were diagnosed with (40.8%). The overall effect showed that there was no difference in TMD prevalence between pregnant and non-pregnant women in childbearing age (RR 1.12; 95% CI: 0.65-1.93), suggesting that pregnant is neither a risk factor nor a protective factor for TMD.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, we did not find an association between TMD and pregnancy, neither positive nor negative. Further studies on larger samples are needed to clarify our results.
Topics: Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Prevalence; Cross-Over Studies; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; Temporomandibular Joint; Estrogens
PubMed: 37021601
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13458 -
International Journal of Oral and... Aug 2023The aim of this study was to determine whether arthrocentesis is superior to conservative treatment in the management of painful temporomandibular joint disorders with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study was to determine whether arthrocentesis is superior to conservative treatment in the management of painful temporomandibular joint disorders with restricted opening. A systematic review was undertaken of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing arthrocentesis to conservative management, identified in the MEDLINE and PubMed databases. Inclusion criteria included a 6-month follow-up, with clinical assessment of the patients and painful restricted mouth opening. Data extracted included pain measured on a visual analogue scale and maximum mouth opening measured in millimetres. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 for RCTs, and a meta-analysis with the random-effects model was undertaken. Of 879 records retrieved, seven met the inclusion criteria; these RCTs reported the results at 6 months for 448 patients. One study had a low risk of bias, four studies had an uncertain risk, and two had a high risk of bias. In the meta-analysis, arthrocentesis was statistically superior to conservative management at 6 months for an increase in maximum mouth opening (1.12 mm, 95% confidence interval 0.45-1.78 mm; P = 0.001; I = 87%) and borderline superior for pain reduction (-1.09 cm, 95% confidence interval -2.19 to 0.01 cm; P = 0.05; I = 100%). However, these differences are unlikely to be clinically relevant.
Topics: Humans; Arthrocentesis; Conservative Treatment; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; Pain; Temporomandibular Joint; Range of Motion, Articular
PubMed: 36732095
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2022.12.005