303 Field Hospital, c/o 56 APO, New Delhi, India.
Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Army Dental Centre (Research & Referral), New Delhi, India.
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2019 Feb;127(2):97-105. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2018.09.010. Epub 2018 Oct 5.
The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of splint therapy in improving outcomes after arthrocentesis for the management of temporomandibular joint disorders.
A comprehensive electronic search was conducted to search for randomized control trials, controlled clinical trials, and retrospective studies comparing arthrocentesis and splint therapy with arthrocentesis alone.
Six studies were included in this review. There was no statistical significant difference in pain reduction with or without the use of splint after arthrocentesis at 1 month (fixed: weighted mean difference [WMD] = -0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.46 to 0.44; P = .96; I = 0%) and 6 months (fixed: WMD = -0.08; 95% CI -0.27 to 0.42; P = .66; I = 0%). Similarly, no difference was seen in improvement in maximal mouth opening at 1 month (fixed: WMD = -0.16; 95% CI -1.75 to 1.42; P = .84; I = 44%), and 6 months (fixed: WMD = -0.83; 95% CI -0.52 to 2.18; P = .23; I = 0%).
Within the limitation of this review, there is some evidence that splint therapy may not improve outcomes after arthrocentesis. There is a need for well-designed RCTs evaluating the additional benefit of splint therapy after arthrocentesis for managing temporomandibular joint disorders.
本系统评价旨在评估关节内穿刺后使用夹板治疗对颞下颌关节紊乱治疗效果的影响。
全面的电子检索搜索了比较关节内穿刺和关节内穿刺加夹板治疗与单纯关节内穿刺的随机对照试验、对照临床试验和回顾性研究。
本综述纳入了 6 项研究。在 1 个月（固定效应：加权均数差 [WMD] = -0.01；95%置信区间 [CI] -0.46 至 0.44；P =.96；I² = 0%）和 6 个月（固定效应：WMD = -0.08；95%CI -0.27 至 0.42；P =.66；I² = 0%）时，使用或不使用夹板后疼痛减轻方面，关节内穿刺后无统计学显著差异。同样，在 1 个月（固定效应：WMD = -0.16；95%CI -1.75 至 1.42；P =.84；I² = 44%）和 6 个月（固定效应：WMD = -0.83；95%CI -0.52 至 2.18；P =.23；I² = 0%）时，最大张口度改善方面也无差异。
在本综述的限制范围内，有一些证据表明夹板治疗可能不会改善关节内穿刺后的治疗效果。需要进行设计良好的 RCT 来评估关节内穿刺后使用夹板治疗对颞下颌关节紊乱的额外益处。
