Carl Bouchard1, Jean-Paul Goulet2, Mehdi El-Ouazzani3, Alexis F Turgeon4. 1. Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, CHU de Quebec - Universite Laval (Hôpital de l'Enfant-Jesus), Quebec, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: carl.bouchard@fmd.ulaval.ca. 2. Emeritus Professor, Section of Stomatology, School of Dental Medicine, Universite Laval, Quebec, Quebec, Canada. 3. Resident, School of Dental Medicine, Universite Laval, Quebec, Quebec, Canada. 4. Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Université Laval, and CHU de Québec - Université Laval Research Center (Hôpital de l'Enfant-Jesus), Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Unit (Trauma-Emergency-Critical Care Medicine), Quebec, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) lavage (arthrocentesis or arthroscopy) for the treatment of temporomandibular disorders in reducing pain and improving jaw motion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TMJ lavage with conservative measures. The data sources were MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Scopus, Web of Science, and reference lists of relevant articles. Two independent reviewers identified RCTs by using controlled vocabulary (MeSH, Emtree) and free text terms. Data extracted from the selected studies included population characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and funding sources. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration risk assessment tool for RCTs. RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria, for a total of 308 patients. Of these studies, 3 were categorized as having a high risk of bias and 2 had a low risk. The summary effect of the 5 studies showed a reduction in pain in the intervention group at 6 months (-0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.90 to -0.37; P < .00001; I2 = 88%) and 3 months (-0.47; 95% CI, -0.75 to -0.19; P = .001; I2 = 85%). This was not the case at 1 month. No difference in mouth opening was observed at 6 months (-0.21; 95% CI, -1.82 to 1.40; P < .80; I2 = 74%), 3 months (0.20; 95% CI, -1.81 to 2.20; P = .85; I2 = 68%), and 1 month (-1.18; 95% CI, -2.90 to 0.55; P = .18; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Given the relatively small number of patients included in this meta-analysis, the high risk of bias in 3 studies, and the statistical and clinical heterogeneity of the included studies, the use of TMJ lavage for the treatment of temporomandibular disorders should be recommended with caution because of the lack of strong evidence to support its use.
PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) lavage (arthrocentesis or arthroscopy) for the treatment of temporomandibular disorders in reducing pain and improving jaw motion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TMJ lavage with conservative measures. The data sources were MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Scopus, Web of Science, and reference lists of relevant articles. Two independent reviewers identified RCTs by using controlled vocabulary (MeSH, Emtree) and free text terms. Data extracted from the selected studies included population characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and funding sources. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration risk assessment tool for RCTs. RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria, for a total of 308 patients. Of these studies, 3 were categorized as having a high risk of bias and 2 had a low risk. The summary effect of the 5 studies showed a reduction in pain in the intervention group at 6 months (-0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.90 to -0.37; P < .00001; I2 = 88%) and 3 months (-0.47; 95% CI, -0.75 to -0.19; P = .001; I2 = 85%). This was not the case at 1 month. No difference in mouth opening was observed at 6 months (-0.21; 95% CI, -1.82 to 1.40; P < .80; I2 = 74%), 3 months (0.20; 95% CI, -1.81 to 2.20; P = .85; I2 = 68%), and 1 month (-1.18; 95% CI, -2.90 to 0.55; P = .18; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Given the relatively small number of patients included in this meta-analysis, the high risk of bias in 3 studies, and the statistical and clinical heterogeneity of the included studies, the use of TMJ lavage for the treatment of temporomandibular disorders should be recommended with caution because of the lack of strong evidence to support its use.
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