Department of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Kingswood, Australia.
Dentist in Private Practice, Welland, Ontario, Canada.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023 Aug;52(8):889-896. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2022.12.005. Epub 2023 Jan 31.
The aim of this study was to determine whether arthrocentesis is superior to conservative treatment in the management of painful temporomandibular joint disorders with restricted opening. A systematic review was undertaken of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing arthrocentesis to conservative management, identified in the MEDLINE and PubMed databases. Inclusion criteria included a 6-month follow-up, with clinical assessment of the patients and painful restricted mouth opening. Data extracted included pain measured on a visual analogue scale and maximum mouth opening measured in millimetres. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 for RCTs, and a meta-analysis with the random-effects model was undertaken. Of 879 records retrieved, seven met the inclusion criteria; these RCTs reported the results at 6 months for 448 patients. One study had a low risk of bias, four studies had an uncertain risk, and two had a high risk of bias. In the meta-analysis, arthrocentesis was statistically superior to conservative management at 6 months for an increase in maximum mouth opening (1.12 mm, 95% confidence interval 0.45-1.78 mm; P = 0.001; I = 87%) and borderline superior for pain reduction (-1.09 cm, 95% confidence interval -2.19 to 0.01 cm; P = 0.05; I = 100%). However, these differences are unlikely to be clinically relevant.
本研究旨在确定关节穿刺术是否优于保守治疗,以治疗伴有张口受限的疼痛颞下颌关节紊乱。对 MEDLINE 和 PubMed 数据库中确定的前瞻性随机对照试验(RCT)进行系统评价,比较关节穿刺术与保守治疗。纳入标准包括 6 个月的随访,对患者进行临床评估和疼痛性张口受限评估。提取的数据包括视觉模拟评分法测量的疼痛和以毫米为单位测量的最大张口度。使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具 2 对 RCT 进行偏倚风险评估,并采用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。从 879 条记录中检索到 7 项符合纳入标准的 RCT,这些 RCT 报告了 448 名患者的 6 个月结果。一项研究的偏倚风险较低,四项研究的偏倚风险不确定,两项研究的偏倚风险较高。荟萃分析显示,在 6 个月时,关节穿刺术在增加最大张口度方面(1.12 毫米,95%置信区间 0.45-1.78 毫米;P = 0.001;I = 87%)和在疼痛缓解方面(-1.09 厘米,95%置信区间-2.19 至 0.01 厘米;P = 0.05;I = 100%)方面,统计学上优于保守治疗,但这些差异不太可能具有临床意义。