Conservative therapy versus arthrocentesis for the treatment of symptomatic disk displacement without reduction: a prospective randomized controlled study

Arthrocentesis versus occlusal coverage splints in the management of disc displacement without reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Disc displacement without reduction (DDwoR) can cause pain and limitations in mouth opening, with a significant impact on function. The optimal management strategy for DDwoR is unclear. Treatments include conservative management such as mandibular manipulation, occlusal splints, and patient education/self-management, as well as arthrocentesis, which is a minimally invasive procedure. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to ascertain whether there is a role for arthrocentesis in the management of DDwoR. Studies analysing the outcomes pain and maximum mouth opening (MMO) in patients with DDwoR treated by arthrocentesis or occlusal coverage devices were eligible for inclusion. Following a database search, six studies with a total of 343 participants were found to be eligible for analysis (three prospective observational studies, one retrospective observational study, one non-randomized single-blind clinical trial, and one unblinded randomized clinical trial). When compared to occlusal coverage splints, arthrocentesis demonstrated a slight improvement in pain, although this was statistically non-significant (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.04 to 0.05, P = 0.07; I2 = 81%), and a significant improvement in MMO (SMD 0.79 mm, 95% CI 0.24-1.35 mm, P = 0.005; I2 = 79%). However, due to the significant heterogeneity between studies and the high risk of bias, along with the paucity of double-blind randomized controlled clinical trials, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn for this clinical question.

Is there a superiority between arthrocentesis and stabilizing occlusal splint for the treatment of anterior disc displacement with reduction and intermittent block and anterior disc displacement without reduction in TMJ? Randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Anterior displacement of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disc is a disorder in which the articular disc is dislocated from its correct position relative to the mandibular condyle and mandibular fossa. Traditionally, the initial treatment of disc displacements involves various conservative measures, including the use of a stabilizing interocclusal splint. However, in cases where there is associated limited mouth opening, as in the case of anterior disc displacement with reduction and intermittent block (ADDwRIB), and anterior disc displacement without reduction (ADDw/oR), arthrocentesis has been suggested as another modality of initial treatment due to its faster effect in preventing disease progression to a more advanced stage, as well as reducing the chances of pain chronification and central sensitization.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to analyze whether there is a preponderance in efficacy between treatments with a stabilizing interocclusal splint or arthrocentesis in these patients.

METHODS

A randomized, prospective, longitudinal clinical trial was conducted. The sample was obtained by convenience, between June 2021 and January 2023. Twenty-four patients with diagnoses of ADDwRIB and ADDw/oR were included. The diagnosis and clinical evaluations followed the DC/TMD criteria, and TMJ MRI was performed. Patients were randomly allocated to 2 treatment groups. Group 1 (n = 13): stabilizing interocclusal splint. Group 2 (n = 11): arthrocentesis. Patients were evaluated after 1, 2, 3, and 6 months for clinical parameters of pain, functionality, and psychosocial status.

RESULTS

Both treatments were effective in reducing pain levels, with no statistically significant differences. Group 1 showed significantly greater mouth-opening levels compared to Group 2 (P = .041).

CONCLUSION

Both groups showed significant improvements in various parameters evaluated throughout the study, indicating they are equally effective in pain control and most functional and quality of life parameters. However, the stabilizing interocclusal splint treatment was superior in restoring mouth opening.

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.

Treatment of painful temporomandibular joint disc displacement without reduction: network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

There is currently no consensus on the best treatment for painful temporomandibular disc displacement without reduction (DDwoR), and no network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing all types of treatments for this condition has been conducted. The objective of this study was to compare and rank all treatments for DDwoR, including conservative treatments, occlusal splints, low-level laser therapy (LLLT), arthrocentesis (Arthro) alone, Arthro plus intra-articular injection (IAI) of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), Arthro plus IAI of hyaluronic acid (HA), Arthro with exercises, Arthro plus occlusal splints, and manipulative therapy. Outcome variables were pain intensity on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and maximum mouth opening (MMO, mm). The mean difference with 95% confidence interval was estimated using Stata software. The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. A total of 742 patients from 16 RCTs were included in the NMA. Both direct meta-analysis and NMA showed that Arthro with IAI of co-adjuvants provided better pain reduction in the short term (≤3 months) than Arthro alone. However, the quality of the evidence was very low. In the intermediate term, Arthro alone or combined with co-adjuvants provided better pain reduction than conservative treatment, but with low-quality evidence. Conservative treatment significantly increased MMO in the short term compared to other treatments. In conclusion, the results of this NMA suggest that arthrocentesis with intra-articular injection of adjuvant medications may be superior to conservative treatments in reducing pain intensity at long-term follow-up, while no significant differences were found for the MMO outcome. However, the quality of evidence was generally low to very low, and further RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

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.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Two Protocol Treatments in Patients with Symptomatic Disc Displacement without Reduction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of arthrocentesis followed by hyaluronic acid infiltration treatment (ASH) and mandibular exercise therapy (MET) in patients with symptomatic disc displacement without reduction (DDwoR) by examining pain intensity (VAS), mandibular range of motion (MO), and quality of life (QoL). Fifty-two patients were randomly allocated into two groups, MET (N = 26) and ASH (N = 26), and therapy was applied at the baseline and one month after. Patients were followed up at 1 and 12 months after the baseline assessment. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes were compared at the baseline, 1-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up. The study found no significant differences in VAS and MO between the ASH and MET groups at the baseline. However, while not significant, it was noted that the ASH group showed higher values for MO. Regarding OHIP-14 at 1 month of follow-up, the ASH group showed significant improvements in physical pain (p > 0.01), physical and psychological disability (p = 0.043 and p = 0.029), and handicap (p = 0.033). At the 12-month follow-up, the ASH group showed significant improvements in functional limitation, psychological discomfort, psychological disability, and handicap (p = 0.008, p = 0.001, p = 0.001, p = 0.005, respectively). ASH treatment did not reduce pain or improve mandibular range of motion more than physical therapy in patients with symptomatic DDwoR. However, ASH could be preferable given its positive long-term effects on patients' quality of life. The clinician's main objective is to prioritize the treatment plan order with a focus on the patient's quality of life. Accordingly, healthcare professionals should consider ASH as a treatment option for patients with symptomatic DDwoR who desire long-term improvement in their quality of life.

Temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis: a single-center experience and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

The aim of this paper was to report our experience and to review the literature of arthrocentesis focusing on protocols and results.

METHODS

Arthrocentesis with supplemental hyaluronic acid was performed in patients with TMDs between January 2017 and December 2020 at the Division of Maxillofacial Surgery. The maximum interincisal opening (MIO) and pain score were recorded preoperatively (T0), 2 months postoperatively (T1), and 6 months postoperatively (T2). A literature search was performed to analyze the same parameters in patients with TMDs. Patient demographic, characteristics and treatment protocols used were also recorded.

RESULTS

This retrospective analysis enrolled 45 patients. Twenty-two patients (20 females, 2 males) with mean age of 37.13 years with internal derangement were included in study group A. Study group B included 23 patients with degenerative joint disease (19 females and 4 males) with mean age of 55.73 years. The outcomes trend of MIO and pain during the follow-up period showed a gradual improvement. Fifty articles meeting the proposed scientific criteria were selected for the literature revision. A range of clinical and procedural variables were analyzed by grouping the studies into two broad categories based on the diagnosis of TMD.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our experience and on the basis of the most accredited scientific studies in the literature, intra-articular injections of HA are beneficial for the improvement of the pain and/or functional symptoms of TMDs.

Efficacy of Arthrocentesis and Stabilization Splints in Treatment of Temporomandibular Joint Disc Displacement Disorder Without Reduction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Temporomandibular joint disc displacement disorders are a group of temporomandibular disorders beside from other inflammatory disorders and growth related disorders of joint. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of arthrocentesis procedure in comparison with stabilization splints used for disc displacement disorders without reduction.

Materials and Methods

A systematic search was done in electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central, Web of Science). In addition to this hand search of references and grey literatures was done. Qualities of randomized controlled clinical trials were assessed by Cochrane's tool for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was followed to assess the prospective and retrospective studies. Outcome variables pain (VAS) and maximum mouth opening were assessed by the software review manager 5.03.

Results

A total of five studies were included in the review. Three studies showed greater improvement of symptoms in patients of arthrocentesis group in terms of maximum mouth opening, pain (VAS) value. Two other studies found no significant advantage of arthrocentesis over the other treatment protocol. The meta-analysis resulted in statistically significant difference between outcome variables favouring arthrocentesis group (VAS 1-10) (Mean Difference: 3.10; 95% CI 1.74, 4.45; P ≤ .00001, Mean difference: 2.00; 95% CI 0.29, 3.71; P = 0.02).

Conclusion

Arthrocentesis showed effective result in terms of increase in mouth opening and reduction of pain level compared to stabilization splint and other non-invasive approaches in patients with disc displacement disorders without reduction. Overall, results supported the rationale of using arthrocentesis in patients with disc displacement disorders without reduction.

Short-term efficacy of exercise therapy for temporomandibular disorders: a case control study

[Purpose] This study compared the short-term outcomes of manual therapy performed by a dentist and home exercises performed by patients as a single exercise therapy program for temporomandibular joint anterior disc displacement without reduction. [Participants and Methods] In this study we included seventeen patients with temporomandibular joint anterior disc displacement without reduction, moderate or greater temporomandibular joint functional impairment, and no treatment interventions. Patients receiving treatment underwent exercise therapy at the time of their first visit, whereas those in the non-treatment group received only an explanation of the condition. We evaluated the clinical symptoms (maximum painless opening distance, pain on motion and mastication, and degree of difficulty in daily life) at the first visit and at the two-week follow-up visit. [Results] For both groups, maximum painless opening distance and degree of difficulty in daily life improved significantly. For the treatment group, the pain on motion and mastication values significantly improved throughout the assessment period. [Conclusion] An exercise therapy program may be useful for the early treatment of temporomandibular joint anterior disc displacement without disc reduction.

Arthrocentesis vs conservative therapy for the management of TMJ disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Arthrocentesis is being widely used as an invasive treatment modality for managing temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders. The current review aimed to assess if arthrocentesis as the first line of therapy leads to better outcomes as compared to conservative management of TMJ disorders.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched up to 20th June 2022 for randomized controlled trials comparing TMJ arthrocentesis vs conservative management as first-line therapy for TMJ disorders.

RESULTS

Eight trials were included. Our analysis indicated significantly reduced pain scores in patients undergoing TMJ arthrocentesis as compared to conservative therapy at 1 month (MD: -0.82 95% CI: -1.43, -0.20 I²=56% p = 0.01) and 6 months (MD: -1.38 95% CI: -2.45, -0.32 I²=86% p = 0.01), but not at 3 months of follow-up (MD: -0.66 95% CI: -1.68, 0.37 I²=82% p = 0.21). The results were not stable on sensitivity analysis. There was no difference in MMO between the TMJ arthrocentesis and conservative therapy groups at 1 month (MD: -0.06 95% CI: -3.67, 3.54 I²=88% p = 0.97), 3 months (MD: -0.35 95% CI: -3.95, 3.25 I²=89% p = 0.85) and 6 months (MD: 0.00 95% CI: -3.34, 3.34 I²=86% p = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

Analysis of a small number of trials with high inter-study heterogeneity indicates that first line TMJ arthrocentesis may result in a significant but small improvement in pain scores but without any additional improvement in MMO as compared to conservative therapies. Current evidence does not provide strong support for the use of TMJ arthrocentesis as the first line of therapy for TMDs.

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.

Surgical Treatment of Temporomandibular Joint Derangement: 30-Year Follow-Up of Temporomandibular Joint Discectomy, a Case Report and Literature Review

The improvement in diagnostic accuracy, improvement of the endoscopic equipment, better selection of patients for open TMJ surgery, and increased focus on research and education are promising for the treatment of the group of patients with TMJ derangements. In the future, prospective randomized clinical trials need to be performed to give the clinician guidelines as to which type of intervention should be chosen in a particular patient base on accepted criteria for diagnosis and treatment of TMJ derangement.

Nonpharmacological Interventions for Pain in Patients with Temporomandibular Joint Disorders: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aimed to compare the efficacy of nonpharmacological therapies for painful temporomandibular joint disorders. The protocol was registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42020171364). The search was performed on the electronic databases PubMed, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials, and Web of Science. The eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials in patients diagnosed with painful temporomandibular joint disorders comparing the pain relief between conventional treatment and nonpharmacological therapies such as acupuncture, physiotherapy, low-level laser, and massage. Fourteen articles were included in this review. At the overall bias of the studies included, 71.42% exhibited some concerns and 28.57% had high risk. The efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions was found to be moderate in the short term and variable in the long term for pain reduction in patients with temporomandibular joint disorders. The evidence pointed out that acupuncture, laser therapy, and physiotherapy are potentially useful interventions for pain relief in patients with temporomandibular joint disorders. However, there is a lack of consistency and short-term follow-up in the studies to determine the lasting of such effect.

The hierarchy of different treatments for arthrogenous temporomandibular disorders: A network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

Different treatment options for patients with arthrogenous Temporomandibular Disorders (TMDs) have been reported. However, evidence regarding the most effective intervention using network meta-analysis (NMA) has not been performed. Thus, we conducted a NMA of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to identify the most effective treatment of arthrogenous TMDs with respect to pain reduction and improved mouth opening, and to generate a ranking according to their effectiveness.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search on three major databases was undertaken to identify RCTs published before August 2019, comparing up to fourteen different treatments against control/placebo patients for arthrogenous TMDs with respect to pain reduction and improved mouth opening. The treatment variables were controls/placebo, conservative treatment (muscle exercises and occlusal splint therapy), occlusal splint therapy alone, intraarticular injection (IAI) of hyaluronic acid (HA) or corticosteroid (CS), arthrocentesis with or without HA, CS and platelet-rich plasma (PRP), arthroscopy with or without HA and PRP, open joint surgery, and physiotherapy. Frequentist NMA was performed using STATA software. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were divided according to the length of follow-up (short-term (≤5 months) and intermediate-term (≥6 months to 4 years) and type of TMJ arthrogenous disorders; internal derangement (ID) and TMJ osteoarthritis (OA). The standardized mean differences (SMD) in post-treatment pain reduction and maximum mouth opening (MMO) were analysed.

RESULTS

Thirty-six RCTs were identified that performed comparative outcome assessments for pain and 33 RCTs for MMO. At the short term (≤5 months), IAI-HA (SMD = -2.8, CI: -3.7 to -1.8) and IAI-CS (SMD = -2.11, CI: -2.9 to -1.2) (all very low quality evidence) achieved a substantially greater pain reduction than control/placebo. At intermediate term (≥6 months), a statistically significant decrease in posttreatment pain intensity was observed following Arthroscopy-PRP (SMD = -3.5, CI: -6.2 to -0.82), Arthrocentesis-PRP (SMD = -3.08, CI: -5.44 to -0.71), Arthroscopy-HA (SMD = -3.01, CI: -5.8 to -0.12), TMJ surgery (SMD = -3, CI: -5.7 to -0.28), IAI-HA (SMD = -2.9, CI: -4.9 to -1.09) (all very low quality evidence), Arthroscopy-alone (SMD = -2.6, CI: -5.1 to -0.07, low quality evidence) and Arthrocentesis-HA (SMD = -2.3, CI: -4.5 to -018, moderate-quality evidence) when compared to the control/placebo groups. Relative to MMO, the most effective treatments for short- and intermediate-term improvement were the arthroscopy procedures (PRP > HA > alone, all very low-quality evidence) followed by Arthrocentesis-PRP (very low-quality evidence) and Arthrocentesis-HA (moderate-quality evidence). The non-invasive procedures of occlusal splint therapy, physical therapy, conservative therapy, placebo/control provided significantly lower quality outcomes relative to pain and MMO.

CONCLUSION

The results of the present meta-analysis support a paradigm shift in arthrogenous TMJ disorder treatment. There is a new evidence (though on a very low to moderate quality level) that minimally invasive procedures, particularly in combination with IAI of adjuvant pharmacological agents (PRP, HA or CS), are significantly more effective than conservative treatments for both pain reduction and improvement of MMO in both short (≤5 months) and intermediate term (6 months-4 years) periods. In contrast to traditional concepts mandating exhaustion of conservative treatment options, minimally invasive procedures, therefore, deserve to be implemented as efficient first-line treatments (e.g. IAIs and/or arthrocentesis) or should be considered rather early, i.e. as soon as patients do not show a clear benefit from an initial conservative treatment.