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

Temporomandibular Joint Injections and Lavage: An Overview of Reviews

Objectives: This overview was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews guidelines and aimed to collect and compare the results of systematic reviews on temporomandibular joint injection treatment. Methods: Systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials on temporomandibular disorders treated with lavage or intra-articular administrations were qualified for syntheses. The final searches were conducted on 27 February 2024, without time frame restrictions. Results: Of the 232 identified records, 42 systematic reviews were selected. The most evidence-based conclusions call into question the clinical differences between many therapeutic approaches, including the following: (1) injectable selection for the treatment of pain and hypomobility; (2) the method of performing arthrocentesis; (3) the use of imaging when rinsing the TMJ cavity; (4) the supplementation of the extracapsular administration of unprocessed blood with intracapsular deposition in the treatment of TMJ hypermobility. Conclusions: Systematic reviews based solely on randomized clinical trials proved the following differences: (1) in painful temporomandibular hypomobility, a better therapeutic effect is observed with arthrocentesis followed by I-PRF administration compared to lavage alone; (2) in painful temporomandibular hypomobility, inferior- or double-compartment injection leads to better results than superior-compartment injection; (3) in temporomandibular joint recurrent dislocation, hypertonic dextrose administration is superior to placebo, although (4) unprocessed blood has a better effect than hypertonic dextrose. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024496142.

Progress in the Study of Temporomandibular Joint Lavage in Temporomandibular Joint Disorder

With the continuous development and progress of medicine, there are many methods for the treatment of temporomandibular disorders, among which temporomandibular joint lavage is also constantly developed. In the past century, through the efforts of some scholars and clinical summary, the understanding of this disease has been deepened and broadened. At present, through continuous exploration of the treatment methods, the lavage is relatively mature, and has achieved good clinical results. In this paper, the application of temporomandibular joint lavage in the treatment of temporomandibular joint disorders, its treatment methods, treatment mechanism, the auxiliary of other drugs, indications, complications and so on were discussed.

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.

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.