Arthrocentesis as initial treatment for temporomandibular joint arthropathy: A randomized controlled trial |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA;2. Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Buffalo New York, Buffalo, NY; formerly, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA;3. Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH;4. Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA;6. Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of California–Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA;5. Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR;1. Marmara University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Guzelbahce, Büyükciftlik Sokak, No: 6, 34365 Nisantasi, Istanbul, Turkey;2. Marmara University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Istanbul, Turkey;3. University of Toronto, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Toronto, Canada;4. Marmara University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics (Head: Yasemin Kulak-Ozkan), Istanbul, Turkey;1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey;2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey;1. Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey;2. Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey;3. Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey;4. Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey;6. Research Assistant, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey;5. Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Bulent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey;1. Istanbul Medipol University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Istanbul, Turkey;2. Selcuk University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Alaaddin Keykubat Kampüsü, Selçuklu, Konya, Turkey;3. Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Human Histology and Embryology, Meram Tıp Fakültesi, Akyokuş, Meram, Konya, Turkey;4. Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Meram Tıp Fakültesi, Akyokuş, Meram, Konya, Turkey |
| |
| Abstract: | ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of arthrocentesis compared to conservative treatment as initial treatment with regard to temporomandibular joint pain and mandibular movement.Patients and methodsIn this randomized controlled trial, 80 patients with arthralgia of the TMJ (classified according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders) were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups. One group received arthrocentesis as initial treatment (n = 40), the other group received conventional treatment including soft diet, physical treatment and occlusal splint therapy (n = 40). Follow-up was after 3, 12 and 26 weeks post treatment. Prior to treatment, and at every follow-up assessment, pain intensity was measured (VAS 0–100 mm at rest, and VAS 0–100 mm during movement) and maximum mouth opening (MMO) (mm interincisor distance). Furthermore patients were asked to fill out several surveys concerning the impact of mandibular impairment on their daily life, and psychosocial aspects.ResultsAfter 26 weeks, the TMJ pain (mm VAS at rest, and mm VAS during movement) had declined comparably in both groups (arthrocentesis n = 36; conservative treatment n = 36) and MMO (mm interincisor distance) had slightly improved. GEE models showed significant differences between arthrocentesis as initial treatment and conservative treatment, indicating that the arthrocentesis group improved more rapidly with regard to TMJ pain (VAS at rest p = 0.008; regression coefficient β = −8.90 (95% confidence interval −15.50, −2.31), VAS during movement p = 0.003; regression coefficient β = −10.76 (95% confidence interval −17.75, −3.77)) and MMO (p = 0.045; regression coefficient β = −2.70 (95% confidence interval −5.35, −0.06)) compared to conservative treatment.ConclusionsArthrocentesis as initial treatment reduces pain and functional impairment more rapidly compared to conservative treatment. However, after 26 weeks, both treatment modalities achieved comparable outcomes.Trial registration numberwww.trialregister.nl: NTR1505. |
| |
| Keywords: | TMD Arthralgia Lavage Initial therapy Pain RCT |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
