Arthrocentesis Versus Level 1 Arthroscopy in Internal Derangement of Temporomandibular Joint

Rajpoot, Dewanshi; Anchlia, Sonal; Bhatt, Utsav; Dhuvad, Jigar; Patel, Hiral; Mansuri, Z.

doi:10.1007/s12663-021-01627-9

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A flow chart describing the identification and screening process is shown in Figure 1. After completion of the full‐text screening of the identified 99 studies, 56 were included in the review Tables S3–S5 17–19,25–77 . The excluded 43 articles can be viewed as a Table S6.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The standard deviation of mean values of TMJ pain was not presented in two of the articles and the standard deviation of MIO not presented in one, leaving MIO to be analysed solely (MD 2.29, 95% CI −5.33 to 9.91) (Figure S3). 37,76 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Arthroscopy was compared to arthrocentesis in four articles and three of them were of low or medium risk of bias. 37,41,48,76 The standard deviation of mean values of TMJ pain was not presented in two of the articles and the standard deviation of MIO not presented in one, leaving MIO to be analysed solely (MD 2.29, 95% CI −5.33 to 9.91) (Figure S3). 37,76…”

Section: Arthroscopy Versus Arthrocentesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evidence for minimally invasive treatment—A systematic review on surgical management of disc displacement

Ulmner,

Bjørnland,

Rosén

et al. 2024

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSurgical treatment of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disc displacement (DD) has been established in different forms since over a century. Ther is a consensus to perform minimal invasive interventions as first‐line surgical treatment since there are no evidence on best surgical practice yet.ObjectiveThe aim was to perform a complex systematic review (SR) on the topic—is there evidence for surgical treatment of TMJ DD?MethodsThe PICO was defined as DD patients (population), treated with different surgical interventions including arthrocentesis (intervention), compared with other or no treatment (control) regarding the outcome variables mandibular function, mouth opening capacity, TMJ pain, etcetera (outcome). For identification of prospective controlled trials and SRs, a search strategy was developed for application in three databases.ResultsThe search yielded 4931 studies of which 56 fulfilled the stipulated PICO. Studies with low or moderate risk of bias were possible to include in meta‐analyses. There were evidence suggesting arthrocentesis being more effective compared to conservative management (maximum interincisal opening (MIO): p < .0001, I2 = 22%; TMJ pain: p = .0003, I2 = 84%) and arthrocentesis being slightly more effective than arthrocentesis with an adjunctive hyaluronic acid injection (MIO: p = .04, I2 = 0%; TMJ pain: p = .28, I2 = 0%). Other treatment comparisons showed nonsignificant differences. The performed meta‐analyses only included 2–4 studies each, which might indicate a low grade of evidence.ConclusionAlthough arthrocentesis performed better than conservative management the findings should be interpreted cautiously, and non‐invasive management considered as primary measure. Still, several knowledge gaps concerning surgical methods of choice remains.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Arthroscopy Versus Arthrocentesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evidence for minimally invasive treatment—A systematic review on surgical management of disc displacement

Ulmner,

Bjørnland,

Rosén

et al. 2024

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tables 1 and 2 detail the features of the studies considered. Two RCTs, [14,15] two CCTs, [13,16] and two retrospective investigations [17,18] and one prospective study [19] were included in the study. In all, 311 individuals were included in the seven investigations, with 162 undergoing arthroscopy and 149 undergoing arthrocentesis.…”

Section: Description Of the Studies Includedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In three studies, [14][15][16] the follow-up time was 1-2 years, whereas in the other investigations, it ranged from 1 month to 6 months. [13,[17][18][19] The synovial membrane and fossa were examined during the arthroscopies for adhesions and disk perforations. The top compartment was cleaned and swept with a blunt probe to remove any adhesion that might cause the disk to become restricted.…”

Section: Description Of the Studies Includedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Arthroscopy and Arthrocentesis in the Management of Internal Derangement in TMJ Disorders: A Systematic Review

Dubey¹,

Mowar²,

Sharma³

et al. 2022

APJHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the systematic review is to shed some light on comparison of Arthroscopy and arthrocentesis in the management of internal derangement in temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders. A comprehensive electronic search was conducted with no date or language constraints. Human research, such as randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and retrospective studies comparing arthrocentesis and arthroscopy in the treatment of internal derangements in TMJ disorders, was included in this study. After considering the exclusion and inclusion criteria, seven studies were being included in the systematic review. Because all trials employed the same scale, the weighted mean difference (WMD) was used to compute the Maximum inter-incisal opening (MIO) (in millimeters) and pain in the continuous data (by visual analog scale). The improvement in MIO following arthroscopy was greater than that following arthrocentesis. The difference in pain reduction between arthroscopy and arthrocentesis patients was statistically significant (fixed: WMD = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.54–0.30; P = 0.00001). When compared to arthrocentesis, arthroscopy lysis and lavage were shown to be more effective in improving MIO and lowering pain.

show abstract

Arthroscopy versus arthrocentesis and versus conservative treatments for temporomandibular joint disorders: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Tang,

van Bakelen,

Gareb

et al. 2024

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arthrocentesis Versus Level 1 Arthroscopy in Internal Derangement of Temporomandibular Joint

Cited by 4 publications

References 23 publications

Evidence for minimally invasive treatment—A systematic review on surgical management of disc displacement

Evidence for minimally invasive treatment—A systematic review on surgical management of disc displacement

Comparison of Arthroscopy and Arthrocentesis in the Management of Internal Derangement in TMJ Disorders: A Systematic Review

Arthroscopy versus arthrocentesis and versus conservative treatments for temporomandibular joint disorders: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About