Chunjie Li1, Yifan Zhang, Jun Lv, Zongdao Shi. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, West China College of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the effect and safety of inferior or double temporomandibular joint spaces drug injection versus superior temporomandibular joint space injection in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE (via Ovid, 1948 to March 2011), CENTRAL (Issue 1, 2011), Embase (1984 to March 2011), CBM (1978 to March 2011), and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched electronically; relevant journals as well as references of included studies were hand-searched for randomized controlled trials comparing effect or safety of inferior or double joint spaces drug injection technique with those of superior space injection technique. Risk of bias assessment with the tool recommended by Cochrane Collaboration, reporting quality assessment with CONSORT and data extraction, were carried out independently by 2 reviewers. Meta-analysis was delivered with RevMan 5.0.23. RESULTS: Four trials with 349 participants were included. All the included studies had moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed that inferior or double spaces injection technique could significantly increase 2.88 mm more maximal mouth opening (P = .0001) and alleviate pain intensity in the temporomandibular area on average by 9.01 mm visual analog scale scores (P = .0001) compared with superior space injection technique, but could not markedly change synthesized clinical index (P = .05) in the short term; nevertheless, they showed more beneficial maximal mouth opening (P = .002), pain relief (P < .0001), and synthesized clinical variable (P < .0001) in the long term than superior space injection. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Inferior or double temporomandibular joint spaces drug injection technique shows better effect than superior space injection technique, and their safety is affirmative. However, more high-quality studies are still needed to test and verify the evidence. Crown
PURPOSE: To compare the effect and safety of inferior or double temporomandibular joint spaces drug injection versus superior temporomandibular joint space injection in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE (via Ovid, 1948 to March 2011), CENTRAL (Issue 1, 2011), Embase (1984 to March 2011), CBM (1978 to March 2011), and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched electronically; relevant journals as well as references of included studies were hand-searched for randomized controlled trials comparing effect or safety of inferior or double joint spaces drug injection technique with those of superior space injection technique. Risk of bias assessment with the tool recommended by Cochrane Collaboration, reporting quality assessment with CONSORT and data extraction, were carried out independently by 2 reviewers. Meta-analysis was delivered with RevMan 5.0.23. RESULTS: Four trials with 349 participants were included. All the included studies had moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed that inferior or double spaces injection technique could significantly increase 2.88 mm more maximal mouth opening (P = .0001) and alleviate pain intensity in the temporomandibular area on average by 9.01 mm visual analog scale scores (P = .0001) compared with superior space injection technique, but could not markedly change synthesized clinical index (P = .05) in the short term; nevertheless, they showed more beneficial maximal mouth opening (P = .002), pain relief (P < .0001), and synthesized clinical variable (P < .0001) in the long term than superior space injection. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Inferior or double temporomandibular joint spaces drug injection technique shows better effect than superior space injection technique, and their safety is affirmative. However, more high-quality studies are still needed to test and verify the evidence. Crown
Authors: Alfonso Gil-Martínez; Alba Paris-Alemany; Ibai López-de-Uralde-Villanueva; Roy La Touche Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 3.133