Pain relief following a single-dose intra-articular injection of methylprednisolone in the temporomandibular joint arthralgia-A multicentre randomised controlled trial

A review of the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) in temporomandibular joint (TMJ) surgery

Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) surgery accounts for a significant number of patient episodes in oral and maxillofacial surgery, and treatment effectiveness is commonly assessed using measures of pain and mouth opening. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) enable assessment of the patient's perspective and perception of the diseases and treatment outcomes. The purpose of this review was to assess the use of PROMs in TMJ surgery. A review of 3 databases (PubMed, OVID, Trip) was carried out to assess the use of PROMs when reporting on TMJ surgical interventions. Studies were limited to the English language, involving humans and at least one surgical intervention of the TMJ. A total of 214 articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, of which only 28 used 18 PROMs among them. Half of these PROMs were single-question visual analogue scales or Likert scales on quality of life and disability. The Oral Health Impact Profile and the Helkimo Clinical Dysfunction Index were the second most used (n = 3). PROMs were used most in studies on internal derangement (n = 9) and in cohort study designs (n = 26), but this was not statistically significant. In the majority of research on TMJ surgery, no PROMs are used, and when one is, there is a tendency to use weaker single-question PROMs as opposed to multi-question PROMs to assess outcomes. With the increasing importance of PROMs for assessing patients' perception of treatment outcomes, further research is needed to establish valid and reproducible PROMs for TMJ surgery.

Pharmacological Treatments of Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review Including a Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) comprise a cluster of conditions with a wide range of etiological factors that causes pain and discomfort in the masticatory muscles (TMD-M) and temporomandibular joints (TMD-J). More than 50% of the patients with TMD report regular usage of drugs. However, there is still no consensus, nor is there any evidence-based support for clinicians when choosing between different drugs. Therefore, this systematic review, including a network meta-analysis (NMA), aimed to evaluate the scientific evidence and discuss the pharmacological treatment options available to treat painful TMD.

METHOD

An electronic search was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacological treatments for TMD-M and/or TMD-J, published until 6 April 2023. Since only 11 articles could be used for an NMA regarding TMD-M, a narrative synthesis was also performed for all 40 included RCTs. The quality of evidence was rated according to Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias, while the certainty of evidence was rated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

When it comes to TMD-M, evidence arises for wet needling therapies with BTX-A, granisetron, and PRP as well as muscle relaxants. For TMD-J, evidence points toward pharmacological treatment approaches including non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and glucocorticosteriods (for inflammatory conditions) as well as hyaluronic acid and dextrose.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence clearly indicates that the pharmacological treatment approaches differ between TMD-M and TMD-J. Therefore, it is of great importance to first try to uncover each patient's individual and multifactorial etiology and then employ a multifaceted treatment strategy, including pharmacological treatment approaches.

Pharmacological Management of Orofacial Pain

Orofacial pain is a category of complex disorders, including musculoskeletal, neuropathic and neurovascular disorders, that greatly affect the quality of life of the patient. These disorders are within the fields of dentistry and medicine and management can be challenging, requiring a referral to an orofacial pain specialist, essential for adequate evaluation, diagnosis, and care. Management is specific to the diagnosis and a treatment plan is developed with diverse pharmacological and non-pharmacological modalities. The pharmacological management of orofacial pain encompasses a vast array of medication classes and approaches. This includes anti-inflammatory drugs, muscle relaxants, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and anesthetics. In addition, as adjunct therapy, different injections can be integrated into the management plan depending on the diagnosis and needs. These include trigger point injections, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) injections, and neurotoxin injections with botulinum toxin and nerve blocks. Multidisciplinary management is key for optimal care. New and safer therapeutic targets exclusively for the management of orofacial pain disorders are needed to offer better care for this patient population.

Current Clinical Research Directions on Temporomandibular Joint Intra-Articular Injections: A Mapping Review

This mapping review aims to identify and discuss current research directions on intracavitary temporomandibular joints (TMJs) injections. The inclusion criteria allowed studies published in the last full six years, based on patients diagnosed with temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs), treated by TMJ intra-articular injections. Medical databases covered by the Association for Computing Machinery, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, PubMed, and Elsevier Scopus engines were searched. The results were visualized with tables, charts, and diagrams. Of the 2712 records identified following the selection process, 152 reports were qualified for review. From January 2017, viscosupplementation with hyaluronic acid (HA) was the best-documented injectable administered into TMJ cavities. However, a significant growing trend was observed in the number of primary studies on centrifuged blood preparations administrations that surpassed the previously leading HA from 2021.

State of the Art in Temporomandibular Joint Arthrocentesis-A Systematic Review

Temporomandibular joint disorders are a heterogenic group of clinical conditions, which impair physiological functioning of the masticatory system. Arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint has become a widely approved method for non-invasive treatment, bridging the gap between conservative and surgical approaches. Regardless of technique, treatment is based upon joint lavage and lysis of the inflammatory fibrous tissue adhesions, which, in turn, improves joint mobility and reduces pain and closed lock. Recently, approaches for intra-articular injections have been proposed as adjuvant or replacement therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the most efficient technique of arthrocentesis. A systematic search based on PRISMA guidelines, including a computer search with specific keywords, a reference list search and a manual search, was performed. Relevant articles were selected after three search rounds for final review. The studies pulled for the analysis presented information about the relevant predictors, including the technique of arthrocentesis (single- or two-needle method), fluid used for lavage (Ringer lactate or saline), volume of the fluid, application of the injectable, number of interventions, pain (VAS) and mouth opening scores (MMO) and follow-up. All cohorts showed improvement in mouth opening, but significant pain reduction was observed only in cohorts treated either by arthrocentesis alone or arthrocentesis followed by intra-articular injectables. Intra-articular injectables used alone failed to reduce pain post-operatively when compared to other cohorts. We concluded that both double-needle and single-puncture arthrocentesis techniques are equally efficient. Application of the adjuvant injectable did not improve the outcomes of arthrocentesis performed alone. The volume of the fluid used for joint lavage and its chemical composition were not significant in clinical outcomes. However, due to the lack of homogeneity in the study settings, a meta-analysis could not be applied and a systematic review was conducted. We still, however, state that there is a knowledge gap in the current literature regarding the use of injectables alone, as well as a longitudinal follow-up, which provides information about treatment efficiency. More high-quality and randomized controlled trials are required to shed light on this subject.

Patient-Reported Quality of Life versus Physical Examination in Treating Temporomandibular Disorders with Intra-Articular Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections: An Open-Label Clinical Trial

Temporomandibular disorders, often manifested by articular pain, limitation of the mouth opening range, and unpleasant acoustic symptoms originating from inside the joint, have been associated with reduced quality of life. These symptoms, among others, can be treated with intra-articular injections of various substances, including repeated platelet-rich plasma (PRP) administration. The reported study was designed as an uncontrolled open-label clinical trial of consecutive cases. The participants completed a Fonseca questionnaire and evaluated acoustic symptoms, and spontaneous and provoked pain on VAS, and were subjected to a physical examination before, during, and after PRP therapy. The total Fonseca questionnaire results were statistically significantly (p < 0.05) correlated with 340 out of 348 (98%) other variables. The fully subjective assessment of the presence and intensity of acoustic symptoms coming from the temporomandibular joints was correlated with the physical examination results (0.45-0.63) and the maximum mouth opening with the maximum pain-free mouth opening (0.73-0.87). There were no correlations observed between the patient's and the physician's assessment of mandibular mobility. The Fonseca questionnaire seems to cover the entire spectrum of temporomandibular disorders, making it a balanced tool for assessing the quality of life in TMDs. However, it is worth considering extending the standard 3-point response scale to an 11-point one. The patient is somewhat able to perform a self-diagnosis with regard to the acoustic symptoms, but it is not possible for them to determine without measurement whether the range of mandibular mobility is appropriate..

EFFECTIVENESS OF INTRA-ARTICULAR INJECTIONS OF SODIUM HYALURONATE, CORTICOSTEROIDS, PLATELET-RICH PLASMA ON TEMPOROMANDIBULAR JOINT OSTEOARTHRITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of Intra-articular injections of corticosteroids (CCS), hyaluronic acid (HA), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Studies were identified from PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov with date up to January 15, 2022. Randomized controlled trials included were the studies of patients with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis who had intra-articular treatment with CCS, HA, PRP, placebo and follow-up assessing temporomandibular joint function in target outcome variables. The primary outcome was temporomandibular joint pain. The secondary outcomes were maximal mouth opening (mm), and lateral movement to the affected side (mm). This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42021270914.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials involving 316 patients were included. For primary pain outcome, no significance was detected when CCS, HA and PRP were compared with placebo by both short- (3-6 months) and long-term (>12 months) follow-up. Relatively, the top ranking of which was PRP in the long-term (Mean Difference, -0.23 [95% CI, -2.49 to 2.04]). In addition, these injectables did not significantly outperform placebo by evaluating secondary functional outcomes (maximal mouth opening and lateral movement) with the same follow-up. Subgroup analyses showed that the effect of CCS on subgroups with more than 70% women was statistically less effective compared with placebo (Mean Difference, 1.73 [95% CI, 0.37-3.09]).

CONCLUSION

Evidence suggested that intra-articular pharmacological injections of CCS, HA, and PRP had no effect on improving temporomandibular joint pain and functional outcomes compared with placebo injection.

Autologous Stem Cells Transplants in the Treatment of Temporomandibular Joints Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

This systematic review aims to analyze the outcomes of the treatment of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) articular pain (AP) and restricted maximum mouth opening (MMO) with intra-articular administration of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). The inclusion criteria allowed primary studies involving AP and/or MMO pre-treatment and post-intervention values. Medical databases that were covered by ACM Digital, BASE, EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science engines were searched. The risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. The results were tabulated, plotted, and analyzed for regression. A total of 5 studies involving 51 patients/69 TMJs were identified, and 4 studies on 50 patients/67 TMJs were synthesized. Interventions were each time effective in decreasing AP and increasing MMO in a 6-month follow-up period by an average of about 85% and over 40%, respectively. Regression analysis showed a good fit of the logarithmic model for AP relief (5.8 − 0.8 ln x; R² = 0.90) and MMO increase (33.5 + 2.4 ln x; R² = 0.89). The results for AP and MMO were based on 3 studies in 39 patients and 4 studies in 50 patients, respectively, all at high risk of bias. The intra-articular administration of MSCs to TMJs, based on weak evidence, may be highly effective in reducing AP and improving MMO. This study received no funding.

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.

Mechanisms of Action and Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid, Corticosteroids and Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Treatment of Temporomandibular Joint Osteoarthritis-A Systematic Review

Temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) is a low-inflammatory disorder with multifactorial etiology. The aim of this review was to present the current state of knowledge regarding the mechanisms of action and the efficacy of hyaluronic acid (HA), corticosteroids (CS) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of TMJ OA.: The PubMed database was analyzed with the keywords: "(temporomandibular joint) AND ((osteoarthritis) OR (dysfunction) OR (disorders) OR (pain)) AND ((treatment) OR (arthrocentesis) OR (arthroscopy) OR (injection)) AND ((hyaluronic acid) OR (corticosteroid) OR (platelet rich plasma))". After screening of 363 results, 16 studies were included in this review. Arthrocentesis alone effectively reduces pain and improves jaw function in patients diagnosed with TMJ OA. Additional injections of HA, either low-molecular-weight (LMW) HA or high-molecular-weight (HMW) HA, or CS at the end of the arthrocentesis do not improve the final clinical outcomes. CS present several negative effects on the articular cartilage. Results related to additional PRP injections are not consistent and are rather questionable. Further studies should be multicenter, based on a larger group of patients and should answer the question of whether other methods of TMJ OA treatment are more beneficial for the patients than simple arthrocentesis.

Ear symptoms in patients with orofacial pain and dysfunction - An explorative study on different TMD symptoms, occlusion and habits

Objectives

Ear symptoms coincident with TMD symptoms have been noticed for a long time. The aim was to investigate the relationship between reported ear symptoms in TMD patients and different TMD symptoms, dental occlusion, oral parafunction and habits.

Material and methods

Consecutive patients, ≥18 years of age and referred to a specialist clinic for orofacial pain and dysfunction during a three‐month period, were considered for the study. Patients with poor general or psychiatric health were excluded. One hundred thirty‐two patients were included and studied with regard to reported ear symptoms in relation to clinical dysfunction, occlusion, habits and subjective rating of their symptoms. A clinical examination was performed according to RDC/TMD and extended with occlusal factors, parafunctions and habits.

Results

Ear symptoms were reported by 72% of the TMD patients, with ear fullness in 49% as the most frequent symptom. The patients with ear symptoms were significantly older and proportionally more often females. Ear symptoms were significantly correlated to the subjective index, to myalgia (p = 0.003), decreased opening capacity (p = 0.01), TMJ pain (p = 0.02), parafunctions (p = 0.007), and some occlusal factor (p = 0.018–0.003). Muscle pain on palpation was significantly associated with ear fullness, and changed hearing and sensitivity to sound, on the same side (p < 0.005).

Conclusions

Ear symptoms are frequently reported by TMD patients. Concomitant ear symptoms are associated with oral parafunction and muscle pain on palpation on the same side as the ear symptoms.

Platelet Concentrate Treatments for Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review compared platelet concentrates (PCs) versus hyaluronic acid (HA) or saline/Ringer's solution injections as treatments of temporomandibular osteoarthritis and disc displacement in terms of pain and maximum mouth opening (MMO).

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched up to March 6, 2020. Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Exclusion criteria were case series, observational studies, animal studies, and reviews. The Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. The weighted mean difference was used to compare the results.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs were included with a total of 407 patients. The numbers of joints treated were 262, 112, and 112 in the PC, HA, and saline groups, respectively. The quality of studies was rated as strong in 4 studies, moderate in 4 studies, and weak in 1 study. The meta-analysis revealed that PCs decreased pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores compared to HA by an average of -1.11 (CI, -1.62 to -0.60; P < 0.0001) and -0.57 (CI, -1.55 to 0.41; P = 0.26) at 3 and 12 mo follow-up respectively. Also, the average decrease in pain scores with PC compared to saline was -1.33 (CI, -2.61 to -0.06; P = 0.04), -2.07 (CI, -3.46 to -0.69; P = 0.003), and -2.71 (CI, -4.69 to -0.72; P = 0.008) at 3, 6, and 12 mo, respectively. Regarding MMO measurements, PC was comparable to HA, but it was significantly better than saline after 3 and 6 mo [2.9 mm (CI,1.47 to 4.3; P < 0.0001), and 1.69 mm (CI, 0.13 to 3.25; P = 0.03) respectively].

CONCLUSION

PC reduces pain VAS scores compared to HA during the first 3 m after treatment, and when compared to saline, it reduces pain and increases MMO for longer durations. However, due to differences between groups regarding PC preparation protocols and study heterogeneity, further standardized RCTs are required.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT

This study provides researchers and clinicians with quantitative and qualitative analyses of the current evidence regarding the clinical outcomes of platelet concentrate injections in the treatment of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis and disc displacement in terms of pain control and maximum mouth opening.

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.

Ultrasensitive separation of methylprednisolone acetate using a photoresponsive molecularly imprinted polymer incorporated polyester dendrimer based on magnetic nanoparticles

We developed an approach for the use of polyester dendrimer during the imprinting process to raise the number of recognized sites in the polymer matrix and improve its identification ability. Photoresponsive molecularly imprinted polymers were synthesized on modified magnetic nanoparticles involving polyester dendrimer which uses the reactivity between allyl glycidyl ether and acrylic acid for the high-yielding assembly by surface polymerization. The photoresponsive molecularly imprinted polymers were constructed using methylprednisoloneacetate as the template, water-soluble azobenzene involving 5-[(4, 3-(methacryloyloxy) phenyl) diazenyl] dihydroxy aniline as the novel functional monomer, and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate as the cross-linker. Through the evaluation of a series of features of spectroscopic and nano-structural, this sorbent showed excellent selective adsorption, recognition for the template, and provided a highly selective and sensitive strategy for determining the methylprednisoloneacetate in real and pharmaceutical samples. In addition, this sorbent according to good photo-responsive features and specific affinity to methylprednisoloneacetate with high recognition ability, represented higher binding capacity, a more extensive specific area, and faster mass transfer rate than its corresponding surface molecularly imprinted polymer.

Pain relief following a single-dose intra-articular injection of methylprednisolone in the temporomandibular joint arthralgia-A multicentre randomised controlled trial

Background

Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthralgia is a painful condition assumed to be associated with local inflammation.

Objective

The objective of the present study was to determine the efficacy for reducing pain of a single‐dose intra‐articular (IA) injection of methylprednisolone to the TMJ. The hypothesis was that methylprednisolone would effectively reduce TMJ pain.

Methods

This randomised, double‐blind, parallel‐group, multicentre, controlled study included visits for enrolment, treatment and 4‐week follow‐up. The study included patients 18 years and older who had been diagnosed with unilateral TMJ arthralgia. All participants were randomly assigned to receive 1 mL IA injections of methylprednisolone or saline. The primary outcome was change in recorded pain intensity on a visual analogue scale (VAS) at maximum jaw opening, analysed in the per protocol population.

Results

In total, 54 patients were randomly assigned to single‐dose IA injections with methylprednisolone (n = 27) or saline (n = 27). Between baseline and the 4‐week follow‐up, VAS‐rated pain intensity at maximum jaw opening decreased from a mean of 61.0 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 50.1; 70.7) to 33.9 (95% CI: 21.6; 46.2) in the methylprednisolone group and from 59.6 (95% CI: 50.7; 65.9) to 33.9 (95% CI: 23.8; 43.9) in the saline group. The between‐group difference was not significant (P = 0.812). Treatment‐related adverse events were doubled in the methylprednisolone group.

Conclusion

Methylprednisolone provided no additional benefit for reducing pain, but caused more harm compared with saline following a single‐dose IA injection in patients with TMJ arthralgia.