{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: [Arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint and intra-articular injections : An update].
{Author}: Marty P;Louvrier A;Weber E;Dubreuil PA;Chatelain B;Meyer C;
{Journal}: Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac Chir Orale
{Volume}: 117
{Issue}: 4
{Year}: Sep 2016
暂无{DOI}: 10.1016/j.revsto.2016.07.020
{Abstract}: <B>BACKGROUND: </B>Arthocentesis of the temporomandibular joint combined with intra-articular washout and, more recently, intra-articular injection of pharmacological agents has been developed from the 1990s and is nowadays extensively in use for the treatment of temporomandibular dysfunctions (TMDs). The goal of our work was to answer 3 questions: 1. Is intra-articular washout effective for the treatment of TMDs ? 2. What kind of pharmacological agents may nowadays be injected in addition to washout and are these injections useful ? 3. What is the place of these treatments in the treatment strategies of TMDs ?<BR><B>METHODS: </B>A bibliographic research has been carried out in the PubMed database using following keywords arthrocentesis, temporomandibular joint. The 27 articles published between 1991 and 2016, indicating patient's inclusion criterions and objectively evaluating the clinical results (mouth opening, intra-articular noises, pain) were selected. Pharmacological agents were noticed when used.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>1. All authors concluded to the efficacy of intra-articular washout. No prognostic factor for arthrocentesis efficacy could be identified. 2. Main pharmacological agents used were steroids, hyaluronic acid, morphine-based drugs and platelet rich plasma. Superiority of ith-injection protocols failed to win unanimous support. All authors who compared with- and without-injection protocols concluded to the superiority of with-injection protocols, whatever the agent.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Numerous studies have proven the efficacy of intra-articular washout for the treatment of TMDs resistant to noninvasive treatments. The advantage of any kind of pharmacological agent is not clear. Mechanisms of action are not all elucidated. No pharmacological agent showed any superiority over another. Study methodologies are often defective: imprecise inclusion criterions, short follow-up, confounding variables not taken into account, few comparison between pharmacological agents.