Evaluation of the efficacy of different treatment modalities for painful temporomandibular disorders

Synthesis of temporomandibular disorders management intervention outcomes for development of core outcome sets: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The selection of appropriate outcomes in clinical trials and systematic reviews is a crucial factor in determining the results that are useful, reliable, and relevant for both patients and healthcare professionals. Clinicians and researchers have been encouraged to develop and apply core outcome sets (COS) to minimise the discrepancy between studies.

AIM

This systematic review is the first phase of the COS development project for clinical trials in temporomandibular disorders (COS-TMD). It aims to identify and synthesise the outcomes used in the randomised controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the effectiveness of interventions used in TMD management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was performed in several databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and EMBASE. The eligibility criteria comprised RCT that applied any intervention to treat temporomandibular joint disorders or masticatory muscle disorders. The identified outcomes were categorised according to domains of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT).

RESULTS

The electronic search resulted in 1606 studies. After removing duplicates and applying the eligibility criteria, 106 RCT were included. A total of 43 studies evaluated masticatory muscle disorders, 27 evaluated temporomandibular joint disorders, and 36 analysed mixed TMD.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation showed significant variability in the types of outcomes and their measurement instruments. In addition, some domains such as physical and emotional functioning, participant ratings of global improvement and adverse events have been neglected when determining the effectiveness of treatments for TMD.

Effect of low-level gallium aluminum arsenide laser therapy on the chewing performance and pain perception of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: A randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on pain intensity (PI) and chewing performance (CP) in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients with myogenic temporomandibular disorder (TMD).

METHODS

Ninety-one patients were randomly allocated to three groups: Group L (intervention), Group P (placebo), and Group C (control). Outcomes were PI (assessed with visual analog scale (VAS)) and CP (assessed with the geometric mean diameter (GMD) of crushed test food). Measurements were performed at T0 (before the LLLT), T1 (immediately after the LLLT), and T2 (1-month follow-up). Data were analyzed using Generalized Linear Models, Kruskal-Wallis, and Friedman tests.

RESULTS

For T1 and T2, Group L demonstrated the lowest values for both GMD (6283.7 ± 257.2 µm; 6382.7 ± 303.7 µm) and VAS (5;6) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

LLLT was an effective therapeutic approach in reducing pain and improving CP for one month in SLE patients with myogenic TMD.

Analysis of the Use of Sample Size and Effect Size Calculations in a Temporomandibular Disorders Randomised Controlled Trial-Short Narrative Review

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) is the term used to describe a pathology (dysfunction and pain) in the masticatory muscles and temporomandibular joint (TMJ). There is an apparent upward trend in the publication of dental research and a need to continually improve the quality of research. Therefore, this study was conducted to analyse the use of sample size and effect size calculations in a TMD randomised controlled trial.

METHODS

The period was restricted to the full 5 years, i.e., papers published in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. The filter article type-"Randomized Controlled Trial" was used. The studies were graded on a two-level scale: 0-1. In the case of 1, sample size (SS) and effect size (ES) were calculated.

RESULTS

In the entire study sample, SS was used in 58% of studies, while ES was used in 15% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality should improve as research increases. One factor that influences quality is the level of statistics. SS and ES calculations provide a basis for understanding the results obtained by the authors. Access to formulas, online calculators and software facilitates these analyses. High-quality trials provide a solid foundation for medical progress, fostering the development of personalized therapies that provide more precise and effective treatment and increase patients' chances of recovery. Improving the quality of TMD research, and medical research in general, helps to increase public confidence in medical advances and raises the standard of patient care.

Early Arthrocentesis for Temporomandibular Joint Arthralgia: A Superiority Trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this superiority trial was to investigate the clinical outcomes of arthrocentesis as an early treatment supported by use of an occlusal splint vs use of an occlusal splint only in the management of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthralgia.

METHODS

Ninety-five adults presenting with TMJ arthralgia were recruited into the study and randomised into 2 groups: Group 1 received arthrocentesis as an early treatment supported by use of an occlusal splint, whereas group 2 received treatment with an occlusal splint only. Seventy-four patients (group 1: n = 37; group 2: n = 37) completed the 1-year follow-up schedule and were included in the final analysis. Reduction of pain intensity measured by a numeric rating scale and increase in mouth opening distance (unassisted maximal, assisted maximal, and pain-free) was seen in both treatment groups.

RESULTS

In group 1, pain intensity significantly decreased at 6 weeks and all subsequent time points compared with group 2. In terms of mouth opening distance, a significant improvement was observed in both groups during the course of treatment, but statistical significance was not seen between the 2 treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Early arthrocentesis supported by use of an occlusal splint is superior to use of an occlusal splint alone in the treatment of TMJ arthralgia. Arthrocentesis with occlusal splint support could be discussed as first-line treatment for arthralgia of the TMJ, which may co-occur with various painful and nonpainful conditions of TMJ disorders.

Treatments for painful temporomandibular disc displacement with reduction: a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

There is currently no consensus on the best treatment for painful temporomandibular disc displacement with reduction (DDwR), and no network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing all types of treatment for this condition has been conducted. The objective of this study was to compare and rank all treatments for DDwR, including conservative treatments, occlusal splints, low-level laser therapy (LLLT), manual therapy, no treatment (control), arthrocentesis (Arthro) alone, Arthro plus intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma (Arthro-PRP) or hyaluronic acid (Arthro-HA), and Arthro plus occlusal splint. Predictor variables were pain intensity and maximum mouth opening (MMO). The mean difference with 95% confidence interval was estimated using Stata software. The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Twenty RCTs reporting 1107 patients were identified in the literature search; 980 of these patients were included in the network meta-analysis. Direct meta-analysis showed that Arthro-PRP significantly reduced pain intensity compared to Arthro alone, while occlusal splint and manual therapy were superior to conservative treatment (all very low quality evidence). Arthro with intra-articular injection of PRP/HA ranked as the most effective treatment in terms of pain reduction, whereas LLLT ranked the best choice for increasing MMO for patients with DDwR. However, it is important to note that the evidence for the superiority of these treatments is generally of very low quality. Therefore, further high-quality research is needed to confirm these findings and provide more reliable recommendations for the treatment of DDwR.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing arthrocentesis with conservative management for painful temporomandibular joint disorder

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; I² = 87%) and borderline superior for pain reduction (-1.09 cm, 95% confidence interval -2.19 to 0.01 cm; P = 0.05; I² = 100%). However, these differences are unlikely to be clinically relevant.

Evaluation of Patient Comfort and Impact of Different Anesthesia Techniques on the Temporomandibular Joint Arthrocentesis Applications by Comparing Gow-Gates Mandibular Block Anesthesia with Auriculotemporal Nerve Block

Aim

Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are clinical situations that are characterized by pain, sound, and irregular movements of the temporomandibular joints. The most common method in the treatment of TMDs is arthrocentesis. This study aims to compare the effect of conventional extraoral auriculotemporal nerve block (ANB) and Gow-Gates (GG) mandibular anesthesia techniques on patient comfort in an arthrocentesis procedure.

Materials and Methods

We performed this study on 40 patients who underwent TMJ arthrocentesis with ANB (n = 20) or GG (n = 20) mandibular anesthesia techniques at the Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry between 2016 and 2019. The predictor variable was the type of an anesthesia technique, and the outcome variables included were pain, maximum mouth opening (MMO), and protrusive movement (PM). They were compared at the preoperative period and 3^rd and 6^th month periods. Statistical analysis included means with standard deviations, a one-way ANOVA for continuous data, and the results were evaluated at the significance level of p < 0.05.

Results

No statistically significant difference was observed between the VAS values, MMO, and PM averages of preoperative, 3^rd and 6^th months of ANB and GG (p=0.142, p=0.209, and p=0.148).

Conclusion

Both anesthesia techniques have provided effective results in terms of pain and functional jaw movements in the postoperative period in arthrocentesis treatment.

The outcomes of ultrasonic and laser therapy in case of temporomandibular disorders – an evidence based update

Introduction. Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are considered multifactorial conditions, thereby with different therapy options, from occlusal equilibration, splint therapy, pharmacotherapy or physical therapy. Among the physical therapies, over the last years, laser therapy and ultrasound therapy have gained attention, as different experimental or clinical studies suggest their efficacy in case of TMDs. The aim of our literature review is to evaluate the available evidence on the effectiveness of laser and ultrasound therapy in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders. Material and method. A research of literature has been performed - articles published over the last 5 years (January 2016 until June 2021) were searched by introducing a combination of different terms, using the Pubmed, Scopus and Google Scholar databases. Results and discussions. A total number of 332 articles was found. For multiple publications regarding the same group of patients, the most recent studies were included. Initial analysis of titles and abstracts eliminated 232 articles, leaving 35 articles whose full text was examined. 20 articles met the inclusion criteria Conclusions. According to the findings of this literature update we can conclude that low level laser therapy, ultrasound therapy, and photobiomodulation may effectively reduce pain for patients suffering of muscular and joint TMDs. However, their effects appear to be only shortly maintained, and only for less complex cases. In addition, it was difficult to compare the studies included, as they do not offer an optimal usage (program, duration of sessions, or number of sessions) of each technique. In this context, we consider that further randomized clinical studies are necessarily to compare each physical technique as well as their synergic effect on the symptoms in case of temporomandibular disorders. Keywords: temporomandibular disorders, low level laser therapy, ultrasound therapy, photobiomodulation, TMD, LLLT

Effect of photobiomodulation therapy on painful temporomandibular disorders

To evaluate the effect of photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) on painful temporomandibular disorders (TMD) patients in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled manner. Participants were divided into a masseter myalgia group (n = 88) and a temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthralgia group (n = 87) according to the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD). Both groups randomly received PBMT or placebo treatment once a day for 7 consecutive days, one session. The PBMT was applied with a gallium-aluminum-arsenide (GaAlAs) laser (wavelength = 810 nm) at pre-determined points in the masseter muscle (6 J/cm², 3 regions, 60 s) or TMJ region (6 J/cm², 5 points, 30 s) according to their most painful site. Pain intensity was rated on a 0–10 numerical rating scale (NRS) and pressure pain thresholds (PPT) and mechanical sensitivity mapping were recorded before and after the treatment on day 1 and day 7. Jaw function was assessed by pain free jaw opening, maximum unassisted jaw opening, maximum assisted jaw opening, maximum protrusion and right and left excursion. Data were analyzed with a mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA). Pain intensity in arthralgia patients decreased over time (P < 0.001) for both types of interventions, however, PBMT caused greater reduction in pain scores than placebo (P = 0.014). For myalgia patients, pain intensity decreased over time (P < 0.001) but without difference between interventions (P = 0.074). PPTs increased in both myalgia (P < 0.001) and TMJ arthralgia patients over time (P < 0.001) but without difference between interventions (P ≥ 0.614). Overall, PBMT was associated with marginally better improvements in range of motion compared to placebo in both myalgia and arthralgia patients. Pain intensity, sensory function and jaw movements improve after both PBMT and placebo treatments in myalgia and arthralgia patients indicating a substantial non-specific effect of PBMT.

Effect of Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) on muscle pain in temporomandibular disorders – an update of literature

Introduction: Temporomandibular disorders are complex pathologies with multifactorial aetiology. Due to this matter, different therapeutic approaches have been developed, one of them being physical therapy (also known as physiotherapy). Low-level laser therapy is often used in treating musculoskeletal diseases, TMJ pain and, although the exact mechanism of LLLT has not yet been completely elucidated, it seems that this kind of therapy induces analgesic, anti-inflammatory and bio-stimulating effects. The aim of this study was to create an update of scientific literature regarding the clinical use of LLLT in patients with temporomandibular disorders, and to identify the impact of this therapy on reducing pain in the masticatory muscles. Methods: A research of literature was performed - articles published over the last 10 years (January 2009 until December 2019) were searched for by introducing a combination of different keywords on the PubMed and ScienceDirect databases. Results: A total number of 294 articles were found. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 28 articles were taken into consideration for our study, and among them, 9 were systematic meta-analyses or literature reviews and 19 were clinical studies. Conclusion: Low level laser therapy may effectively reduce pain in patients suffering from muscular- and/or joint-specific TMDs, but the effect appears to last only for a short period of time, and can be achieved only in less complex cases. LLLT may also improve oro-facial functions by reducing muscular activity. This research also reveals the need for better-designed clinical trials with larger sample sizes, in order to evaluate the efficacy of LLLT on improving the signs and symptoms of TMDs. Key words: Low-level laser therapy, temporomandibular disorders, muscle pain,