A systematic review and meta-analysis of the surgical outcomes in patients with osteochondroma of mandibular condyle.

Many options exist in the diagnosis and management of condylar osteochondroma. The purpose of this study was to provide a congregate information concerning treatment of the osteochondroma involving the mandibular condyle. The search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and Cochrane database until February 2022. Twenty-seven studies were included for the final review. The review included 439 patients who underwent surgical management for mandibular condylar osteochondroma. The position of osteochondroma was mentioned in 13 studies. Preauricular, retromandibular, endaural, submandibular, transzygomatic, and intraoral approaches were used for approaching the tumor. Surgical techniques included resection, conservative condylectomy, and total condylectomy. Concomitant orthognathic surgery was performed along with tumor resection in 19 studies. In the entire review, the recurrence rate was 0.22% (1/439). The results of the meta-analysis showed that 2 studies reported significant malocclusion events after surgical therapy. Total joint replacement after tumor resection has a higher improvement in maximal mouth opening (8 mm) compared with vertical ramus osteotomy and no reconstruction groups, which have similar improvements (6 mm). The mainstay of treatment of osteochondroma is surgical excision either as condylectomy or conservative condylectomy. Among the various reconstruction modalities, total joint replacement showed better improvement in mouth opening. Adjunct procedures like orthodontic and orthognathic surgery have an important role in holistic management of severe cases. The treating surgeon must choose the surgical procedures in a pragmatic way.

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.