[Arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint and intra-articular injections : An update]

Accurate Diagnosis and Treatment of Painful Temporomandibular Disorders: A Literature Review Supplemented by Own Clinical Experience

Introduction

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) is a multifactorial group of musculoskeletal disorders often with combined etiologies that demand different treatment plans. While pain is the most common reason why patients decide to seek help, TMD is not always painful. Pain is often described by patients as a headache, prompting patients to seek the help of neurologists, surgeons, and ultimately dentists. Due to the unique characteristics of this anatomical area, appropriate diagnostic tools are needed, as well as therapeutic regimens to alleviate and/or eliminate the pain experienced by patients. Aim of the Study. The aim of this study is to collect and organize information on the diagnosis and treatment of pain in TMD, through a review of the literature supplemented by our own clinical experience. Material and Methods. The study was conducted by searching scientific databases PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar for documents published from 2002-2022. The following keywords were used to build the full list of references: TMD, pain, temporomandibular joint (TMJ), TMJ disorders, occlusal splint, relaxing splints, physiotherapy TMD, pharmacology TMD, natural therapy TMD, diagnostic criteria for TMD, and DC/TMD. The literature review included 168 selected manuscripts, the content of which was important for pain diagnosis and clinical treatment of TMD.

Results

An accurate diagnosis of TMD is the foundation of appropriate treatment. The most commonly described treatments include physiotherapy, occlusal splints therapy, and pharmacological treatment tailored to the type of TMD.

Conclusions

Based on the literature review and their own experience, the authors concluded that there is no single ideal form of pain therapy for TMD. Treatment of TMD should be based on a thorough diagnostic process, including the DC/TMD examination protocol, psychological evaluation, and cone beam computer tomography (CBCT) imaging. Following the diagnostic process, once a diagnosis is established, a treatment plan can be constructed to address the patient's complaints.

Predictors for patient satisfaction of a single intra-articular injection of crosslinked hyaluronic acid combined with mannitol (HANOX-M-XL) in patients with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis. Results of a prospective open-label pilot study (HAPPYMINI-ARTEMIS trial)

Background

Chronic pain and functional impairment interfere with the quality of life of subjects suffering from temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders. Intra-articular (IA) hyaluronic acid (HA) injections have been shown to alleviate pain and improve mandibular mobility in patients with TMJ osteoarthritis (OA).

Objectives

The primary aim of the study was to identify the prognostic factors of patient satisfaction for a single IA injection of a mannitol-modified crosslinked HA (HANOX-M-XL) in patients with TMJ-OA. The second goal was to obtain clinical data on effectiveness, safety and mandibular mobility throughout a six-month follow-up period.

Patients and methods

This was an observational single-arm prospective trial with a six-month follow-up. Inclusion criteria: patients with TMJ-OA which is not relieved by analgesics and/or non-steroidal-anti-inflammatory drugs and/or orthotics, with radiological evidence of TMJ-OA. All patients received a single IA injection of 1 ml HANOX-M-XL in the target TMJ. The primary endpoint was patient satisfaction on day 180. The main secondary outcome measures were pain variation on a 11-point numeric scale (0–11) between the date of injection and month six, the variation over time of the Maximum Inter-Incisal Opening Distance (MIIOD) and the patient’s assessment of effectiveness. Predictive factors of success or failure were also studied. All adverse events were recorded.

Results

36 subjects (mean age 55.3 years, mean disease duration 98 months), covering a total of 52 injected TMJs, were included. Between baseline and endpoint, the average pain while chewing decreased dramatically from 6.9 ± 1.2 to 2.9 ± 1.3 (p < 0.0001) and the MIIOD increased from 29 ± 7 to 35 ± 5 mm (p < 0.01). On day 180, all patients were satisfied with the treatment, with 34 patients (94%) rating it as highly effective or effective. Tolerability was good in all but one patient. In the multivariate analysis, patient satisfaction on day 180 was highly correlated with the pain while chewing score, pain on palpation score and the decrease of pain over time (all p < 0.0001) but not with MIIOD, gender, age, bruxism, articular noise and symptom duration. Previous viscosupplementation was also related to higher satisfaction (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

Despite a long history of pain, most of the patients with symptomatic TMJ-OA benefited from a single injection of HANOX-M-XL, as shown by the sustained (up to 6 months) decrease in pain and improvement in mandibular mobility, with no safety concerns.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05352-3.

A Comparative Study Between Concentric Single-Needle Puncture Technique and Conventional 2-Needle Technique for Temporomandibular Joint Arthrocentesis Plus Corticosteroid Injections

The purpose of the study was to compare 2 techniques of arthrocentesis, to find out the efficacy of one over the other at various parameters, and to contribute to the scarce literature of these 2 techniques. Forty patients reported with a chief complaint of pain in temporomandibular joint (TMJ), clicking in TMJ, and restricted mouth opening were included in this study. Twenty patients were divided into 2 groups, all reporting with temporomandibular disorders. Group A was treated with 2-needle technique of arthrocentesis, while group B underwent concentric needle technique of arthrocentesis under local anesthesia with Ringer's lactate solution. The operating time was found to be less in concentric needle technique (mean: 25.36 minutes) compared to 2-needle technique (mean: 42.82 minutes), and the difference was found to be statistically significant. Concentric needle technique proved to be a better alternative for TMJ arthrocentesis as it has quite a lot of advantages over 2-needle technique.