Arthrocentesis versus conservative treatments for TMJ dysfunctions: A preliminary prospective study
Keywords:Arthrocentesis, Conservative treatment, TMJ dysfunctions
Background and objective: The temporomandibular disorders present with a variety of signs and symptoms which include pain in the joint and its surrounding, jaw sounds, limited jaw opening, jaw deviation and headache. The aim of this study was to compare the results and efficacy of arthrocentesis with those of conservative treatments for temporomandibular joint disorders.
Methods: In a clinical comparative prospective study, 45 patient of both sexes were enrolled in this study according to inclusion criteria’s. The arthrocentesis group consisted of 22 patients (31 joints). The conservative treatment group consisted of 23 patients (34 joints). For both groups, pretreatment and four months post treatment parameters (visual analogue scale for pain, maximum mouth opening and joint sounds score) were recorded.
Results: The results revealed that highly statistically significant difference between all pretreatment and forth months post treatment parameter means for both groups (P < 0.001). Both arthrocentesis and conservative treatments were effective. There was a highly statistical significant difference between the four months post treatment parameter means for both groups (P < 0.001). Arthrocentesis was superior to conservative treatments. The overall success rate was 87.1% for arthrocentesis and 55.9% for conservative treatments.
Conclusion: Both conservative treatment and arthrocentesis are effective in the treatment of temporomandibular joint dysfunctions. However, arthrocentesis seems to be superior.
2. Le Bell Y, Niemi PM, Jamsa T, Kylmala M, Alanen P. Subjective reactions to interventions with artificial interferences in subjects with and without a history of temporomandibular disorders. Acta Odontol Scand 2006; 64:59-63.
3. Karlis V, Glickman R. Nonsurgical Management of Temporomandibular Disorders. In: Miloro M, Ghali GE, Larsen PE, editors. Peterson’s Principles of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 2004. P. 950–3.
4. Barkin S, Weinberg S. Internal derangements of the temporomandibular joint: the role of arthroscopic surgery and arthrocentesis. J Can Dent Assoc 2000; 66:199-202.
5. Nitzan DW, Dolwick MF, Martinez GA.Temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis: A simplified treatment for severe, limited mouth opening. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991; 49:1163–70.
6. Carvajal WA, Laskin DM. Long-term evaluation of arthrocentesis for treatment of internal derangements of the temporomandibular joint. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 58: 852–5.
7. Frost DE, Kendell BD.The use of arthrocentesis for treatment of temporomandibular joint disorders. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999; 57: 583–7.
8. Ethunandan M, Wilson A W.Temporomandibular Joint Arthrocentesis: More Questions Than Answers? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 64:952-5.
9. Dimitroulis G, Dolwick MF, Martinez A.Temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis and lavage for the treatment of closed lock: a follow-up study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995; 33: 23–6.
10. Alpaslan C, Kahraman S, Guner B, Cula S. Does the use of soft or hard splints affect the short-term outcome of temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis?. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 37: 424–7.
11. Murakami K, Hosaka H, Moriya Y, Segami N, Lizuka T. Short-term outcome study for the management of temporomandibular joint closed lock: A comparison of arthrocentesis to nonsurgical therapy and arthroscopic lysisandlavage. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995; 80: 253–7.
12. Nitzan DW. Arthrocentesis for management of severe closed lock of the temporomandibular joint. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 1994; 6: 245–57.
13. Nitzan DW.The process of lubrification impairment and its involvement in temporomandibular joint disc displacement: A theoretical concept. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 59:36-45.
14. Kaneyama K, Segami N, Nishimura M, Sato J, Fujimura K, Yoshimura H. The ideal lavage volume for removing bradykinin, interleukin-6 and protein from the temporomandibular joint by arthrocentesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62:657–61.
15. Onder ME, Tuz HH, Kocyigit D, Kisnisci RS. Long-term results of arthrocentesis in degenerative temporomandibular disorders. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107(1):e1–5.
16. Kaneyama K, Segami N, Shin-Ichi T, Fujimura K, Sato J, Nagao T. Anchored disc phenomenon with a normally positioned disc in the temporomandibular joint: characteristics and behaviour. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 45:279-83.
17. Alpaslan GH, Alpaslan C. Efficacy of temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis with and without injection of hyaluronic acid in treatment of internal derangements. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 59:613-8.
18. Sanroman JF. Closed lock (MRI fixed disc): A comparison of arthrocentesis and arthroscopy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 33:344–8
19. Dıraçog˘lu D, Saral IB, Keklik B, Kurt H, Emekli U, Özçakar L, et al. Arthrocentesis versus nonsurgical methods in the treatment of temporomandibular disc displacement without reduction. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 108:3-8.
20. Sato S, Oguri S, Yamaguchi K, Kawamura H, Motegi K. Pumping injection of hyaluronic acid for patients with nonreducing disc displacement of the temporomandibular joint: |Two year follow-up. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2001; 29:89-93.
21. Merskey H.The perception and measurement of pain .J Psychosom Res 1973; 17:251-5.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2014 Saeed Hameed Saeed, Reiadh K. Al-Kamali (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The copyright on any article published in Zanco J Med Sci is retained by the author(s) in agreement with the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial ShareAlike License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).