Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Hyaluronic Acid Following Arthrocentesis for Temporomandibular Joint Disc Disorders: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Does intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma/platelet-rich fibrin improve outcomes after temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) have been used as adjuncts to temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthrocentesis but without any high-quality evidence. This systematic review collated data from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide level-1 evidence on its efficacy. Trials published on the databases of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science up to 4 August 2023 and comparing intra-articular PRP/PRF with control after TMJ arthrocentesis were eligible. Primary outcomes were pain and maximal mouth opening (MMO). Twelve RCTs were included. Pooled analysis showed that pain scores were significantly reduced with the use of PRP/PRF as compared with control at one month (MD: -0.96 95% CI: -1.58 to -0.35 I2 = 86%), three months (MD: -1.22 95% CI: -1.86 to -0.59 I2 = 85%), and ≥six months (MD: -1.61 95% CI: -2.22 to -1.00 I2 = 88%). Similarly, MMO was significantly improved in the PRP/PRF group at one month (MD: 2.40 95% CI: 1.02 to 3.77 I2 = 88%), three months (MD: 3.17 95% CI: 1.63 to 4.72 I2 = 91%), and ≥six months (MD: 2.98 95% CI: 1.86 to 4.10 I2 = 75%) as compared with the control group. Subgroup analysis for PRP and PRF failed to show any difference in outcomes. Moderate quality evidence suggests that PRP and PRF may significantly improve pain and MMO when used as adjuncts to TMJ arthrocentesis. Due to the small effect size, the clinical significance of the results is questionable. The high heterogeneity in PRP/PRF preparation methods is a significant limitation.

Arthrocentesis for temporomandibular joint disorders: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Clinical studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of arthrocentesis in managing temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs). However, there is a lack of consensus among these studies regarding the selection of injectables. Furthermore, an increasing number of drugs have been tested for TMDs in recent years, complicating the decision-making process for clinicians. This study conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the clinical efficacy of different arthrocentesis treatment regimens.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to gather articles on RCTs pertaining to the management of TMDs using arthrocentesis. This search spanned from inception of these databases up to July 29, 2024. We then performed a network meta-analysis using Stata 17.0 software. The outcome indicators used were VAS scores and changes in unassisted maximum opening. To determine the efficacy of each regimen, we employed surface-under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranking.

RESULT

Forty RCTs were included, encompassing 1904 temporomandibular joints (TMJs) cases. Treatment options encompass platelet-rich plasma (PRP), hyaluronic acid (HA), corticosteroids (CS), bone marrow concentrate (BMAC), injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF), concentrated growth factor (CGF), Tenoxicam (TX), microfragmented adipose tissue (FAT), and their combination regimens. The SUCRA ranking revealed that the most effective treatment options at 1-, 3-, and 6-months post-arthrocentesis were HA + PRP, i-PRF, and BMAC, respectively.

CONCLUSION

HA + PRP, i-PRF and BMAC may represent the optimal arthrocentesis agents for the management of TMDs symptoms and restoration of TMJ function in the short, medium, and long term, respectively.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ , identifier CRD42024563975.

Systematic review of intervention descriptions in randomised controlled trials with injectable agents for temporomandibular disorder using TIDieR and PEDro scales

The effectiveness of healthcare depends on clinical trials in which the benefits and harms of interventions are assessed and accurately reported. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of the description of randomised controlled trial (RCT) interventions with injectable substances in painful temporomandibular joint disorder after arthrocentesis. RCTs with patients aged ≥ 18 years old, with temporomandibular disorder that analysed the use of intra-articular substances after arthrocentesis, comparisons with arthrocentesis/other injectable techniques, with joint pain and mandibular movement limitation were included. Non-randomised controlled trials, and RCTs in patients with systemic disorders were excluded. The search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases. The study description quality was evaluated by Template for intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). The methodological quality was performed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database's PEDro scale. The data were submitted to the Spearman correlation test to evaluate the direction and magnitude of the association between the quality of the intervention description and the methodological quality of the RCTs. A total of 9,793 articles were identified, of which 113 were eligible studies and 19 were included. The mean (SD) ratings by TIDieR = 8 (1.07). Absent items in all RCTs that negatively impacted the TIDieR score were: 'Were there adaptations?', 'Were there modifications?' and 'Assessment of adherence'. Other topics were not satisfactorily described: 'Who performed the intervention?' (52.63%), and 'Where it was performed' (36.84%). There was no correlation between TIDieR and PEDro (r=0.009). RCTs with good methodological quality do not contemplate all the TIDieR items and the scale's proper use would contribute to more detailed reports and more faithful reproduction of therapies in clinical research and practice. Complete reports facilitate the understanding of the evidence obtained and serve as a guide in the reproduction of the research in future studies and in clinical application.

Which of the autologous blood products administered simultaneously with arthrocentesis is more effective in terms of clinical outcomes?

This study aimed to determine which of the autologous blood products administered simultaneously with arthrocentesis is more effective on clinical outcomes in patients with temporomandibular joint disorder. The study included 116 patients who underwent arthrocentesis alone, i-PRF (injectable- Platelet Rich Fibrin) with arthrocentesis, and PRP (Platelet Rich Plasma) with arthrocentesis. A total of 35 patients underwent arthrocentesis (Group A), 47 patients underwent arthrocentesis with i-PRF (Group APRF) and 34 patients underwent arthrocentesis with PRP (Group APRP). All patients received local anaesthesia before the procedure, and then the upper joint cavity was irrigated with approximately 100 mL of saline solution. Subsequently, patients in Group APRF and Group APRP were administered 2 ml of autologous blood product. All patients' pain and maximum mouth opening values were compared statistically at each time point: before the procedure, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the procedure. The results demonstrated no significant difference among the groups in terms of pain. Nevertheless, in terms of maximum mouth opening, superior outcomes were observed in the early postoperative period in the PRP group, while superior outcomes were observed in the late postoperative period in the i-PRF group.

Efficacy of hyaluronic acid in temporomandibular disorders evaluated with diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD)

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to retrospectively assess the efficacy of hyaluronic acid (HA) in managing temporomandibular disorders (TMD) using the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD). There has been an ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of HA as a treatment option for TMD, which necessitated a thorough evaluation.

METHODS

The review adhered to PRISMA guidelines conducted across eight different databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, ScienceDirect, PsycINFO and CINAHL. The selection criteria included studies that evaluated the efficacy of HA in TMD patients, utilised DC/TMD, and were published in English. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. ROB-2 tool was employed to assess methodological quality of the assessed studies.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. They demonstrated that HA was effective in improving various symptoms of TMD, such as pain, mouth opening and joint sounds over control group. But on the other end, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) was found to be better than HA intervention in alleviation of TMD symptoms. However, the degree of improvement varied across the studies. Some studies reported adverse effects, but these were typically minor and transient. Risk of bias assessment was low in all the included studies.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that HA can be an effective treatment for TMD when evaluated with DC/TMD. However, the variation in effectiveness across studies indicates the need for individualised treatment planning and careful monitoring of adverse effects. Further research is needed to refine the treatment protocols and understand the long-term effectiveness and safety of HA in TMD management.

Hyaluronic Acid/Platelet-Rich Plasma Mixture Improves Temporomandibular Joint Biomechanics: A Systematic Review

Hyaluronic acid (HA) is the main component of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) synovial fluid. Arthritis in temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) disrupts HA metabolism, resulting in shorter polymeric chain predominance and increased friction. Intra-articular injections of HA supplement the larger molecules of this glycosaminoglycan, and the platelet-rich plasma (PRP) delivered in this way releases growth factors, suppressing inflammation. This PRISMA-compliant PROSPERO-registered (CRD42024564382) systematic review aimed to assess the validity of mixing HA with PRP in the injectable treatment of TMJ disorders. We searched the medical literature for eligible randomized clinical trials using BASE, Google Scholar, PubMed and Scopus engines on 9 May 2024, with no time frame limit. Selected reports were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. Numerical data were collected on articular pain and mandibular mobility. We provided mean differences from baseline and between study and control groups at each observation point. The efficacy of TMD treatment with HA/PRP versus HA or PRP alone was assessed meta-analytically. Of 171 identified records, we selected 6 studies. In the 6-month follow-up, the mean advantage of PRP supplementation with HA was 2.52 (SE = 2.44; d = 0.83) mm and the benefit of adding PRP to HA was 1.47 (SE = 2.68; d = 0.34) mm in mandibular abduction. The pain-improvement scores were -1.33 (SE = 1.02; d = -1.05) and -1.18 (SE = 0.92; d = 0.80), respectively. Presumably, the HA/PRP range of therapeutic efficiency includes cases non-respondent to HA or PRP alone.

Conservative versus Invasive Approaches in Temporomandibular Disc Displacement: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) frequently cause orofacial pain and dysfunction, with treatment options spanning from conservative therapies to invasive surgical procedures. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze and compare the efficacy and safety profiles of conservative, minimally invasive interventions and surgical procedures in patients diagnosed with TMDs and disc displacement.

METHODS

Following PRISMA recommendations, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCT). Data were synthesized in a table and evaluated through the Cochrane risk of bias 2 (RoB 2) tool.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight RCTs, most with moderate RoB, were selected. Conservative approaches, including physical therapy and occlusal devices, led to an improvement in symptoms and function. Pharmacological treatments demonstrated effectiveness in reducing pain and improving function; however, they can have undesirable side effects. Minimally invasive and invasive treatments also demonstrated efficacy, although most trials did not show their superiority to conservative treatments.

CONCLUSION

The primary approach to TMDs should be a conservative, multimodal treatment plan tailored to patient complaints and characteristics. Treatment goals should focus on symptom control and functional recovery. Surgical treatment should be reserved for cases with a precise diagnosis and a clear etiology.

Intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma vs hyaluronic acid as an adjunct to TMJ arthrocentesis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to find out if there is any difference in outcomes with the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or hyaluronic acid (HA) intra-articular injections after temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis.

METHODS

A systematic search of the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was undertaken up to 5th May 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PRP with HA after TMJ arthrocentesis were included.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were eligible. Pooled analysis failed to demonstrate any significant difference in MMO between PRP and HA groups at 1 month (MD: 0.21 95 % CI: -1.29, 1.70), 3 months (MD: 0.92 95 % CI: -2.96, 4.80), and 6 months (MD: -0.05 95 % CI: -2.08, 1.97). The inter-study heterogeneity was high with I2 values of 85 %, 98 %, and 81 % respectively. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in pain scores between the PRP and HA groups at 1 month (MD: 0.42 95 % CI: -2.25, 3.10), 3 months (MD: 0.90 95 % CI: -1.60, 3.41), and 6 months (MD: 0.06 95 % CI: -0.92, 1.04) with inter-study heterogeneity of 99 %, 99 %, and 92 % respectively.

CONCLUSION

Intra-articular use of PRP or HA after TMJ arthrocentesis may lead to comparable clinical outcomes. The current evidence is low-quality and fraught with high heterogeneity.

Platelet-rich plasma therapy for temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial

The study aimed to compare the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for the treatment of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ-OA) with hyaluronic acid (HA) therapy. This randomized controlled trial included 70 patients with TMJ-OA, randomly divided into either a PRP or HA group. The pain intensity, maximum mouth opening (MMO), TMJ sound score, and proportion of crepitus were recorded and compared at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months. Both groups showed statistically significant improvements in pain intensity, MMO, TMJ sound, and scale scores during the 6-month follow-up period. The improvements in pain intensity during mouth opening at 1 month, MMO at 1, 3, and 6 months, TMJ sound score at 1 and 3 months, and GAD-7 score at 6 months in the PRP group were greater than in the HA group (p < 0.05). Compared with the HA group, imaging improvement in the PRP group was also higher (p < 0.05). Within the limitations of the study it seems that the application of PRP therapy in TMJ-OA is should be considered whenever possible.

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.

Current Clinical Research Directions on Temporomandibular Joint Intra-Articular Injections: A Mapping Review

This mapping review aims to identify and discuss current research directions on intracavitary temporomandibular joints (TMJs) injections. The inclusion criteria allowed studies published in the last full six years, based on patients diagnosed with temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs), treated by TMJ intra-articular injections. Medical databases covered by the Association for Computing Machinery, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, PubMed, and Elsevier Scopus engines were searched. The results were visualized with tables, charts, and diagrams. Of the 2712 records identified following the selection process, 152 reports were qualified for review. From January 2017, viscosupplementation with hyaluronic acid (HA) was the best-documented injectable administered into TMJ cavities. However, a significant growing trend was observed in the number of primary studies on centrifuged blood preparations administrations that surpassed the previously leading HA from 2021.

Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid in Relieving Post-implantation Pain: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Many patients suffer from some degree of pain following the surgical procedures of dental implantation. The fear of pain may be one reason for postponing such prosthodontic treatments. Many procedures have been suggested to control post-implantation pain. This trial evaluated the effectiveness of using hyaluronic acid (HA) during dental implantation on patients’ perceived pain during the postsurgical soft-tissue healing period.

Methodology

A split-mouth randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted. The trial sample consisted of 22 dental implants in 11 patients (five males and six females). Patients were selected from those attending the Department of Oral Medicine at the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Damascus between February 2021 and May 2022. The implants were performed in similar bone quality and density for each patient as the implants were inserted in the same jaw on both sides to ensure the same physiological conditions. The study sample was divided into two groups. The first group (the experimental group) consisted of 11 implants in which the implant site was drilled, following which HA was placed inside the implant site and on the surrounding bone before the flap was returned and sutured. The second group (the control group) comprised 11 implants following the conventional procedure without applying any material to the implant socket. The main outcome measure was pain perception which was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS). Patients were asked to record their perceived pain on the first, third, and tenth days. Two-sample t-tests were used to detect significant differences.

Results

There were statistically significant differences in the mean pain intensity between the experimental and control groups on the first, third, and tenth days (p < 0.05). The mean values of perceived pain in the control group were 5.68, 1.72, and 0.56 on the first, third, and tenth days, respectively. In comparison, the mean values of perceived pain in the experimental group were 4.52, 1.14, and 0.18 on the first, third, and tenth days, respectively. The maximum perceived pain in the control group was 7.5 on the first day following implantation, whereas the maximum value recorded in the experimental group was 6.5. At the third assessment time (i.e., 10 days following the surgical intervention), the mean values were in the very mild category of pain intensity.

Conclusions

This study showed that applying HA in the implant cavity and on the surrounding bone effectively reduced pain after dental implant surgery in comparison with the control group. Patients had lower mean pain scores at one, three, and ten days following surgery compared to the conventional method. HA is suggested to be an adjunctive method to control postsurgical pain after dental implantation.

Treatment of Mandibular Hypomobility by Injections into the Temporomandibular Joints: A Systematic Review of the Substances Used

INTRODUCTION

Hyaluronic acid, steroids and blood products are popularly injected into the temporomandibular joint (TMJs) to relieve pain and increase the extent of mandibular abduction. The purpose of this review is to identify other injectable substances and to evaluate them in the above-mentioned domains.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The review included articles describing clinical trials of patients treated with intra-articular injections with or without arthrocentesis.

RESULTS

The following emerging substances were initially evaluated to be effective in treating TMJ pain and increasing the amplitude of mandibular abduction: analgesics, dextrose with lidocaine, adipose tissue, nucleated bone marrow cells and ozone gas.

DISCUSSION

Better effects of intra-articular administration are achieved by preceding the injection with arthrocentesis.

CONCLUSIONS

The most promising substances appear to be bone marrow and adipose tissue.

Intraarticular injections of platelet rich plasma and plasma rich in growth factors with arthrocenthesis or arthroscopy in the treatment of temporomandibular joint disorders: A systematic review

Intra-articular platelet rich plasma injections [PRP] or platelet rich growth factors [PRGF] injections have been used as therapeutic treatment options for patients with temporomandibular joint disorder [TMD] in recent years. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the level of the available scientific evidence in the current literature on the benefits of applying PRP or PRGF injections to patients with TMD simultaneously or after arthrocentesis or arthroscopy to reduce post-operative pain and improve temporomandibular joint function. This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA criteria and an electronic database search was carried out in the PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases during May 2021. The patients in the study group were injected with intra-articular PRP or PRGF simultaneously or after arthrocentesis or arthroscopy while the patients in the control group had arthrocentesis or arthroscopy without an intra-articular injection or received an injection of hyaluronic acid or Ringer's lactate solution. Eight randomised controlled clinical trials were selected. The PRP and PRGF intra-articular injections demonstrated significant differences in terms of pain reduction in three studies and improved mandibular function in two. The treatment with PRP or PRGF intra-articular injections demonstrated slightly better clinical results but of little significance in comparison with the control group. Evidence of their effectiveness is crucial to establish them as non-invasive treatments and as an affordable option for treating some types of TMDs. In accordance with Evidence-based dentistry principles, this review has been assigned a C recommendation.