Evidence for minimally invasive treatment-A systematic review on surgical management of disc displacement.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disc displacement (DD) has been established in different forms since over a century. Ther is a consensus to perform minimal invasive interventions as first-line surgical treatment since there are no evidence on best surgical practice yet. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to perform a complex systematic review (SR) on the topic-is there evidence for surgical treatment of TMJ DD? METHODS: The PICO was defined as DD patients (population), treated with different surgical interventions including arthrocentesis (intervention), compared with other or no treatment (control) regarding the outcome variables mandibular function, mouth opening capacity, TMJ pain, etcetera (outcome). For identification of prospective controlled trials and SRs, a search strategy was developed for application in three databases. RESULTS: The search yielded 4931 studies of which 56 fulfilled the stipulated PICO. Studies with low or moderate risk of bias were possible to include in meta-analyses. There were evidence suggesting arthrocentesis being more effective compared to conservative management (maximum interincisal opening (MIO): p < .0001, I2 = 22%; TMJ pain: p = .0003, I2 = 84%) and arthrocentesis being slightly more effective than arthrocentesis with an adjunctive hyaluronic acid injection (MIO: p = .04, I2 = 0%; TMJ pain: p = .28, I2 = 0%). Other treatment comparisons showed nonsignificant differences. The performed meta-analyses only included 2-4 studies each, which might indicate a low grade of evidence. CONCLUSION: Although arthrocentesis performed better than conservative management the findings should be interpreted cautiously, and non-invasive management considered as primary measure. Still, several knowledge gaps concerning surgical methods of choice remains.

Incidence of chronic neuropathic pain subsequent to surgical removal of impacted third molars.

To determine the incidence of atypical odontalgia/chronic neuropathic pain subsequent to surgical removal of impacted third molars, a telephone survey and a clinical investigation were carried out. Patients operated on for impacted mandibular third molars during 1994 96 in the Oral Surgery Clinic. School of Dentistry, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, were contacted by telephone. Answers were obtained from 1035 (71%) out of a total of 1458 operated patients. Median observation time was 5 years 9 months, ranging from 4 years 5 months to 6 years 9 months. All except 23 (2.2%) patients stated that they had no long-term symptoms or problems from the surgical site, jaw, or face after the third molar removal. These 23 patients were all examined clinically and radiologically, and symptoms and findings were evaluated. Seventeen patients had TMJ dysfunction: primarily pain of muscular and joint origin. Three patients had a periodontal problem associated with the adjacent second molar, with deep bony pockets and recurrent periodontal infection while two had chronic pulpitis of a second molar. One patient reported a temporary maxillary pain after removal of an ipsilateral mandibular third molar. None of the patients met the criteria for a diagnosis of atypical odontalgia/neuropathic pain. A 95% confidence interval of 0-0.38% of incidence rate of postoperative neuropathic pain was calculated. It is concluded that atypical odontalgia/ chronic neuropathic pain subsequent to surgical third molar removal is rare.