Arthrocentesis for temporomandibular joint disorders: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

Objective Clinical studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of arthrocentesis in managing temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs). However, there is a lack of consensus among these studies regarding the selection of injectables. Furthermore, an increasing number of drugs have been tested for TMDs in recent years, complicating the decision-making process for clinicians. This study conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the clinical efficacy of different arthrocentesis treatment regimens. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to gather articles on RCTs pertaining to the management of TMDs using arthrocentesis. This search spanned from inception of these databases up to July 29, 2024. We then performed a network meta-analysis using Stata 17.0 software. The outcome indicators used were VAS scores and changes in unassisted maximum opening. To determine the efficacy of each regimen, we employed surface-under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranking. Result Forty RCTs were included, encompassing 1904 temporomandibular joints (TMJs) cases. Treatment options encompass platelet-rich plasma (PRP), hyaluronic acid (HA), corticosteroids (CS), bone marrow concentrate (BMAC), injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF), concentrated growth factor (CGF), Tenoxicam (TX), microfragmente

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.