The use of intra-articular analgesics to improve outcomes after temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis: a review

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.

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.

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.

Intra-Articular Local Anesthetics in Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of local anesthetic administration into temporomandibular joint cavities in relieving pain and increasing mandibular mobility. Randomized controlled trials were included with no limitation on report publication dates. Final searches were performed on 15 October 2023, using engines provided by the US National Library, Bielefeld University, and Elsevier Publishing House. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Articular pain and mandible abduction values and their mean differences were summarized in tables and graphs. Eight studies on a total of 252 patients evaluating intra-articular administration of articaine, bupivacaine, lidocaine, and mepivacaine were included in the systematic review. None of the eligible studies presented a high risk of bias in any of the assessed domains. An analgesic effect of intra-articular bupivacaine was observed for up to 24 h. In the long-term follow-up, there were no statistically significant changes in quantified pain compared to both the baseline value and the placebo group, regardless of the anesthetic used (articaine, bupivacaine, and lidocaine). There is no scientific evidence on the effect of intra-articular administration of local anesthesia on the range of motion of the mandible. Therefore, in the current state of knowledge, the administration of local anesthetics into the temporomandibular joint cavities can only be considered as a short-term pain relief measure.

Evaluation of the effects of arthrocentesis combined with occlusal stabilization splint on disc displacement without reduction-induced acute and closed lock. A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Disc displacement without reduction (DDWoR) of the temporomandibular joint is associated with limited mouth opening and arthralgia. In the natural course of the disorder, there is a tendency to progress to degenerative joint diseases. First-line treatment aims to reduce pain and restore joint function. The current study aims to examine the efficacy of an occlusal stabilization splint applied simultaneously with arthrocentesis as first-line treatment in acute and chronic closed-locks.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present prospective clinical trial included 40 patients who were diagnosed with DDWoR induced chronic (Group 1, n = 23) and acute (Group 2, n = 17) closed-locks. All participants underwent single session arthrocentesis and were applied occlusal stabilization splints. Maximum mouth opening amounts (MMO), Visual analogue scale (VAS), and McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ) scores were evaluated at baseline, on the operation day, and on seven days after the intervention. The obtained data was analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed-rank, Mann-Whitney U, Fisher's exact, Spearman's correlation tests.

RESULTS

According to the baseline data, a significant increase was observed in the amount of MMO in postoperative measurements (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001). A statistically significant decrease in MPQ scores was observed in the postoperative period (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). While a significant difference was observed between the postoperative VAS scores, the scores of Group 2 were lower (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

Although combined arthrocentesis and occlusal stabilization splint provided significant changes for acute and chronic closed-locks in line with first-line treatment goals, acute closed-lock with arthralgia responded better.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05671549.

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.

Comparison of outcomes with the single-puncture and double-puncture techniques of arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare intra-operative and postoperative outcomes between the single-puncture and the standard double-puncture techniques of arthrocentesis.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception up to 31^st August 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective studies conducted on patients with temporomandibular joint disorders comparing any type of single-puncture arthrocentesis with standard double-puncture arthrocentesis and reporting intra-operative/postoperative outcomes were included. Assessment of the risk of bias was done with the Cochrane Collaboration risk assessment tool.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included (12 were RCTs). Analysis of a limited number of studies indicated no difference in pain or maximal mouth opening (MMO) between the single-puncture type-1 or type-2 and the double-puncture technique at various follow-up intervals. Pooled analysis (four studies) demonstrated that the single-puncture type-2 technique requires significantly less operating time as compared to the double-puncture method. No such difference was noted between single-puncture type-1 and double-puncture techniques. Analysis of two studies indicated significantly reduced intra-operative needle relocations with the single-puncture techniques. Studies were not of high quality with concerns of bias in randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited data indicate no difference in pain or MMO with single- or double-puncture techniques of arthrocentesis. Amongst the three techniques, the single-puncture type-2 technique has the advantages of significantly lower operating time and reduced intra-operative needle relocations and it may be the preferred method of TMJ arthrocentesis in clinical practice.

The role of adenosine A1 receptor in the peripheral tramadol's effect in the temporomandibular joint of rats

Peripheral tramadol's delivery in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) leads to significant analgesic outcomes and inflammatory process's resolvent actions. Mechanistically, these properties are apart from the opioid system. Nevertheless, the molecular mechanisms behind these effects are still unclear. Therefore, the present study investigated the hypothesis that adenosine A₁ receptors are involved in the tramadol-induced analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects in the TMJ. Animals were pretreated with an intra-TMJ injection of DPCPX (antagonist of A₁ receptor) or tramadol and subsequent nociceptive challenge with an intra-TMJ injection of 1.5% formalin. For over 45 min, the nociceptive behavior was quantitated, and by the end of this assessment, the animals were euthanized, and the periarticular tissue was collected. Lastly, an in vitro assay of BMDM (Bone Marrow-Derived Macrophages) was performed to investigate tramadol activity in macrophages. The intra-TMJ injection of tramadol ameliorates formalin-induced hypernociception along with inhibiting leukocyte migration. The tramadol's peripheral anti-inflammatory effect was mediated by the adenosine A₁ receptor and was associated with increased protein expression of α2a-adrenoceptor in the periarticular tissues (p < 0.05: ANOVA, Tukey's test). Also, tramadol inhibits formalin-induced leukocyte migration and protein expression of P2X7 receptors in the periarticular tissue (p < 0.05); however, DPCPX did not alter this effect (p > 0.05). Moreover, DPCPX significantly reduced the protein expression of the M2 macrophage marker, MRC1. In BMDM, tramadol significantly reduces inflammatory cytokines release, and DPCPX abrogated this effect (p < 0.05). We identify tramadol's peripheral effect is mediated by adenosine A₁ receptor, possibly expressed in macrophages in the TMJ tissue. We also determined an important discovery related to the activation of A₁R/α2_a receptors in the tramadol action.

Do intra-articular injections of analgesics improve outcomes after temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis?: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Intra-articular analgesics are increasingly being used after temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthrocentesis but without clear evidence on its efficacy. The aim of this study was to review the role of intra-articular analgesic injected after TMJ arthrocentesis in improving post-operative outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, BioMed Central, CENTRAL and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception up to 15th April 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adult patients with temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs) comparing any intra-articular analgesic with control after arthrocentesis were included. Risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias-2 tool.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs were included. Four studies used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and five used opioids after arthrocentesis. Descriptive analysis of NSAID studies indicated that intra-articular NSAIDs may not improve pain and maximal mouth opening (MMO) after TMJ arthrocentesis. Meta-analysis indicated a statistically significant reduction of pain with the use of opioids at 1 week, 1, 3, and 6 months. Similarly, MMO was significantly improved with intra-articular opioids at 1 week, 1 and 6 months. Data were analysed from a limited number of studies with a small sample size. The quality of the included studies was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence suggests that intra-articular NSAIDs may have no effect on pain and MMO after TMJ arthrocentesis. Intra-articular opioids may improve pain and MMO at short-term follow-up. Results are to be interpreted with caution considering several limitations of the review. Further high-quality trials with large sample size are needed to provide better evidence.

Ultrasound-guided vs conventional arthrocentesis for management of temporomandibular joint disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare outcomes between ultrasound (US)-guided arthrocentesis and conventional arthrocentesis for the management of temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, BioMed Central, CENTRAL, and Google scholar databases were searched up to April 1 2020 for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing US-guided and conventional arthrocentesis.

RESULTS

Four RCTs were included. Pooled analysis did not demonstrate any statistically significant difference in pain or maximal mouth opening (MMO) scores after 1 week and 1 month of follow-up between US-guided and conventional arthrocentesis. Studies also reported data on intra-operative needle relocations and operating time but with conflicting results.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that the use of US during arthrocentesis may not improve postoperative pain and MMO in the short term. Data on intra-operative outcomes are scarce and conflicting for any definitive conclusions. Further high-quality adequately powered RCTs are required to strengthen current evidence.

The use of arthrocentesis in patients with temporomandibular joint disc displacement without reduction

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the use of the arthrocentesis in patients with disc displacement without reduction (DDWOR). Two hundred and thirty-four (234) patients with DDWOR were evaluated and the following data collected: gender; affected side; age (years); duration of the pain (months); patient's perception of pain (measured by Visual Analogue Scale [VAS 0-10]); maximal interincisal distance (MID) (mm); and joint disc position, determined by magnetic resonance imaging. Data were obtained in two different moments: before the arthrocentesis (M1) and three or four months later (M2). Paired t-Student Test, Scores Test and Wilcoxon Test showed a statistical significant difference (p<0.0001) between the M1 and M2 for the variables VAS and MID. There was an alteration in the joint disc position in 93.88% of the cases after arthrocentesis. There was no association between the general characteristics of the patients on the M1 and the results of the arthrocentesis (p>0.05). It can be concluded that the arthrocentesis is efficient in reducing the pain, in increasing interincisal distance, and altering the joint disc position in patients with DDWOR regardless gender, age side and pain duration.