Does the Use of Injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin After Arthrocentesis for Disc Displacement Without Reduction Improve Clinical Outcomes?

PURPOSE

Many studies have reported the role of arthrocentesis to alleviate symptoms in patients with disc displacement without reduction (DDWoR). Nevertheless, the benefit of injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to answer the following question: Among patients with DDWoR, do those treated with intra-articular injection of i-PRF after arthrocentesis, when compared to those treated with arthrocentesis only, have better clinical outcomes in terms of pain reduction and improvement of jaw movement?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-blind randomized, controlled study included patients with diagnosed DDWoR, in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at the School of Dentistry, Ege University, who had localized joint pain and limited range of motion. Patients were treated either with arthrocentesis (AC group) or arthrocentesis in combination with intra-articular i-PRF injection (AC + i-PRF group). The predictor variable was treatment (ie, arthrocentesis with or without i-PRF). The primary outcome variable was pain (visual analog scale). The secondary outcome variables were maximum mouth opening, lateral and protrusive movements. Outcome variables were recorded at pretreatment and at the postoperative 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, and 12th months. Statistical analysis was performed using the Brunner-Langer model, with a significance level P < .05.

RESULTS

This study comprised 76 patients (34 females/4 males, mean age 47.2 ± 9.1 for the AC + i-PRF group; 35 females/3 males, mean age 46.8 ± 10.2 for the AC group). The treatment success rate was 73.7% for the AC group and 100% for the AC + i-PRF group (P = .012). Pain levels in the AC + i-PRF group were found to decrease more than the AC group over 12 months postoperatively (palpation: -6.9 ± 1.2 vs -5.3 ± 1.3; chewing: -6.9 ± 1.5 vs -5.1 ± 1.7; jaw movements: -6.9 ± 1.1 vs -5.1 ± 1.4). This difference was statistically significant (P < .001). The degree of jaw movement in the AC + i-PRF group was found to increase more than the AC group over 12 months postoperatively (maximum mouth opening: 8.0 ± 2.1 vs 4.9 ± 2.0; contralateral: 1.8 ± 0.8 vs 0.2 ± 1.0; ipsilateral: 2.9 ± 1.3 vs 0.8 ± 1.5; protrusive: 2.6 ± 1.1 vs 0.8 ± 1.3). This difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Intra-articular injection of i-PRF after arthrocentesis produced greater improvements in pain reduction and jaw movement when compared to arthrocentesis only. These results indicate that i-PRF used in combination with arthrocentesis is an effective adjunctive treatment.