The efficacy of dextrose prolotherapy over placebo for temporomandibular joint hypermobility: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the systematic review was to analyse the available evidence in order to assess the efficacy of dextrose prolotherapy in improving outcomes in temporomandibular joint (TMJ) hypermobility patients as compared to placebo. METHODS: An electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL and Google scholar databases was performed for English language papers published up to February 2018. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing dextrose prolotherapy with placebo for TMJ hypermobility were included. RESULTS: Three RCTs were included in the review. Frequency of subluxation/dislocation was reported by two trials which found no difference between dextrose and placebo. A statistical significant difference in reduction of MMO with the use of dextrose prolotherapy was seen on pooling of data (random: MD = -3.32, 95% CI -5.26 to -1.28; P = 0.0008; I2  = 0%). A statistical significant difference in pain reduction was also seen with dextrose as compared to placebo (random: MD = -1, 95% CI -1.58 to -0.42; P = 0.0007; I2  = 0%). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the study, dextrose prolotherapy may cause significant reduction in mouth opening and pain associated with TMJ hypermobility. Conclusions with regard to reduction of episodes of subluxation/dislocation cannot be drawn. There is a need of more high-quality RCTs with larger sample size and homogenous prolotherapy protocol to draw stronger conclusions on the effect of dextrose prolotherapy in patients with TMJ hypermobility.

Does intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma/platelet-rich fibrin improve outcomes after temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) have been used as adjuncts to temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthrocentesis but without any high-quality evidence. This systematic review collated data from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide level-1 evidence on its efficacy. Trials published on the databases of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science up to 4 August 2023 and comparing intra-articular PRP/PRF with control after TMJ arthrocentesis were eligible. Primary outcomes were pain and maximal mouth opening (MMO). Twelve RCTs were included. Pooled analysis showed that pain scores were significantly reduced with the use of PRP/PRF as compared with control at one month (MD: -0.96 95% CI: -1.58 to -0.35 I2 = 86%), three months (MD: -1.22 95% CI: -1.86 to -0.59 I2 = 85%), and ≥six months (MD: -1.61 95% CI: -2.22 to -1.00 I2 = 88%). Similarly, MMO was significantly improved in the PRP/PRF group at one month (MD: 2.40 95% CI: 1.02 to 3.77 I2 = 88%), three months (MD: 3.17 95% CI: 1.63 to 4.72 I2 = 91%), and ≥six months (MD: 2.98 95% CI: 1.86 to 4.10 I2 = 75%) as compared with the control group. Subgroup analysis for PRP and PRF failed to show any difference in outcomes. Moderate quality evidence suggests that PRP and PRF may significantly improve pain and MMO when used as adjuncts to TMJ arthrocentesis. Due to the small effect size, the clinical significance of the results is questionable. The high heterogeneity in PRP/PRF preparation methods is a significant limitation.

The use of intra-articular analgesics to improve outcomes after temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis: a review.

PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to assess the efficacy of intra-articular analgesics in improving outcomes after temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthrocentesis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Google scholar databases was performed for papers in English published up to December 2017 reporting the use of intra-articular analgesics after TMJ arthrocentesis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), comparative studies, retrospective studies, and case series were included while case reports, technical reports, animal studies, cadaveric studies, and review papers were excluded. RESULTS: Of the six studies included in the review, three were RCTs, two were randomized comparative studies, and one was a retrospective study. Both opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have been used after TMJ arthrocentesis. Morphine, tramadol, fentanyl, buprenorphine, tenoxicam, and COX-2 inhibitors are the drugs used till date. Placebo-controlled studies reported improved outcomes after TMJ arthrocentesis with morphine and fentanyl but no such results with buprenorphine and tenoxicam. Tramadol was found to be better than COX-2 inhibitor. The quality of literature was not high. CONCLUSIONS: There is inconclusive evidence in literature on the benefits of using intra-articular analgesics after TMJ arthrocentesis. Well-designed high-quality RCTs with standard protocol studying the effects of intra-articular opioids and NSAIDS after TMJ arthrocentesis would provide stronger evidence on its use.