Efficacy of added splint therapy after arthrocentesis vs arthrocentesis alone in the management of temporomandibular joint disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.3 4区医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Quintessence international Pub Date : 2024-10-14 DOI:10.3290/j.qi.b5785077

Sumin Wang, Zeshen Wang, Gehong Zhou

{"title":"Efficacy of added splint therapy after arthrocentesis vs arthrocentesis alone in the management of temporomandibular joint disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Sumin Wang, Zeshen Wang, Gehong Zhou","doi":"10.3290/j.qi.b5785077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Occlusal splints are commonly used in the management of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders (TMD). However, it is unclear if it should be used after a second-line therapy like arthrocentesis. We systematically reviewed the evidence on the efficacy of post-arthrocentesis splint therapy in the management of TMD.Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were searched for studies published until 5th August 2024. The outcomes assessed were pain and maximal mouth opening (MMO).Results: Eight studies were included. Five studies reported data for the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis found that there was no statistically significant difference in pain scores in the arthrocentesis + splint group vs arthrocentesis group at 1 month (MD: -0.01 95% CI: -0.46, 0.44), 3 months (MD: -0.02 95% CI: -0.67, 0.63) and 6 months (MD: 0.06 95% CI: -0.25, 0.37). The pooled analysis also showed that splint therapy after arthrocentesis may not significantly improve MMO as compared to no splint therapy at 1 month (MD: 0.08 95% CI: -2.11, 2.27), 3 months (MD: 0.76 95% CI: -0.84, 2.35) and 6 months (MD: 0.56 95% CI: -0.65, 1.78). Descriptive analysis of three studies showed that two supported the use of splints while one found no added improvement in outcomes.Conclusions: Limited evidence from low-quality studies shows that the use of splint therapy after arthrocentesis may not improve pain and MMO in patients with TMD. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to improve evidence.","PeriodicalId":20831,"journal":{"name":"Quintessence international","volume":"0 0","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quintessence international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.b5785077","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Occlusal splints are commonly used in the management of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders (TMD). However, it is unclear if it should be used after a second-line therapy like arthrocentesis. We systematically reviewed the evidence on the efficacy of post-arthrocentesis splint therapy in the management of TMD.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were searched for studies published until 5th August 2024. The outcomes assessed were pain and maximal mouth opening (MMO).

Results: Eight studies were included. Five studies reported data for the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis found that there was no statistically significant difference in pain scores in the arthrocentesis + splint group vs arthrocentesis group at 1 month (MD: -0.01 95% CI: -0.46, 0.44), 3 months (MD: -0.02 95% CI: -0.67, 0.63) and 6 months (MD: 0.06 95% CI: -0.25, 0.37). The pooled analysis also showed that splint therapy after arthrocentesis may not significantly improve MMO as compared to no splint therapy at 1 month (MD: 0.08 95% CI: -2.11, 2.27), 3 months (MD: 0.76 95% CI: -0.84, 2.35) and 6 months (MD: 0.56 95% CI: -0.65, 1.78). Descriptive analysis of three studies showed that two supported the use of splints while one found no added improvement in outcomes.

Conclusions: Limited evidence from low-quality studies shows that the use of splint therapy after arthrocentesis may not improve pain and MMO in patients with TMD. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to improve evidence.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

关节腔穿刺术后添加夹板疗法与单纯关节腔穿刺术治疗颞下颌关节紊乱症的疗效对比：系统综述和荟萃分析。

目的：咬合夹板常用于治疗颞下颌关节（TMJ）疾病（TMD）。然而，是否应在关节置换术等二线疗法后使用咬合夹板尚不明确。我们系统地回顾了关节穿刺术后夹板疗法在治疗 TMD 方面疗效的证据：方法：检索了 PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Web of Science、CENTRAL 和 Google Scholar 上截至 2024 年 8 月 5 日发表的研究。结果：共纳入 8 项研究：结果：共纳入八项研究。结果：共纳入 8 项研究，其中 5 项研究为荟萃分析提供了数据。汇总分析发现，在 1 个月（MD：-0.01 95% CI：-0.46, 0.44）、3 个月（MD：-0.02 95% CI：-0.67, 0.63）和 6 个月（MD：0.06 95% CI：-0.25, 0.37）时，关节穿刺夹板组与关节穿刺组的疼痛评分差异无统计学意义。汇总分析还显示，与不使用夹板治疗相比，关节穿刺术后夹板治疗在 1 个月（MD：0.08 95% CI：-2.11，2.27）、3 个月（MD：0.76 95% CI：-0.84，2.35）和 6 个月（MD：0.56 95% CI：-0.65，1.78）时可能不会显著改善 MMO。对三项研究进行的描述性分析表明，两项研究支持使用夹板，而一项研究则发现夹板对治疗效果没有额外的改善：来自低质量研究的有限证据显示，关节穿刺术后使用夹板治疗可能无法改善TMD患者的疼痛和MMO。需要进行高质量的随机对照试验来完善证据。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Quintessence international 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

5.30%

发文量

审稿时长

1 months

期刊介绍： QI has a new contemporary design but continues its time-honored tradition of serving the needs of the general practitioner with clinically relevant articles that are scientifically based. Dr Eli Eliav and his editorial board are dedicated to practitioners worldwide through the presentation of high-level research, useful clinical procedures, and educational short case reports and clinical notes. Rigorous but timely manuscript review is the first order of business in their quest to publish a high-quality selection of articles in the multiple specialties and disciplines that encompass dentistry.