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.

Injectable platelet-rich fibrin as treatment for temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

The purpose of this study was to assess the treatment outcomes of intraarticular injection of injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) after arthrocentesis in patients with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ-OA). Patients were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: those who received intraarticular injection of i-PRF after arthrocentesis procedure - the i-PRF group; and those who underwent the arthrocentesis procedure alone - the control group. The primary outcome variable was pain, the level of which was measured preoperatively and at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The secondary outcome variables included maximum mouth opening (MMO), and lateral and protrusive movements. Of the total of 36 patients, 18 were analyzed in the i-PRF group and 18 in the control group. There were significant differences between the groups in terms of pain levels and measurements of MMO, lateral movement, and protrusive movement over the 12 months of follow-up (p < 0.001). Significant increases in pain levels and decreases in measurements of MMO, lateral movement, and protrusive movement were observed in the control group from the 6th to 12th month postoperatively (p < 0.001). In contrast, no significant differences were found in both pain levels and measurements of MMO, lateral, and protrusive movements for the i-PRF group from the 2nd to the 12th month postoperatively. Within the limitations of the study it seems that intraarticular injection of i-PRF after arthrocentesis should be preferred whenever appropriate because when reducing pain intensity and improving functional jaw movement is the priority.