File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Ultrasonography-guided arthrocentesis versus conventional arthrocentesis in treating internal derangement of temporomandibular joint: a systematic review

TitleUltrasonography-guided arthrocentesis versus conventional arthrocentesis in treating internal derangement of temporomandibular joint: a systematic review
Authors
KeywordsUltrasonography
Arthrocentesis
Temporomandibular disorder
Temporomandibular joint
Issue Date2020
PublisherSpringer for German Society of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. The Journal's web site is located at http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00784/index.htm
Citation
Clinical Oral Investigations, 2020, v. 24 n. 11, p. 3771-3780 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: This systematic review assessed the clinical question: ‘Does ultrasonography (USG)-guided arthrocentesis provide better outcomes than conventional arthrocentesis in patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD)?’ Materials and methods: The review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. An initial search was performed on electronic databases—including Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane Library—followed by manual and reference searches until the date September 27, 2019. The articles selected were evaluated for study and patient characteristics, arthrocentesis procedure details, and treatment outcomes (post-operative pain, maximum mouth opening (MMO), procedure time, and attempts of needle positioning). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group’s data extraction template and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Results: Out of the 325 initially identified articles, four studies with 144 patients were included in the final qualitative analysis. No significant differences were found in pain reduction and improved MMO between sample groups receiving conventional arthrocentesis and USG-guided arthrocentesis. Needle positioning attempts and procedural times were conflicting between the two groups. Conclusions: This systematic review found that the outcomes of USG-guided arthrocentesis were not superior to conventional arthrocentesis. Conflicting data was found in the attempts of needle positioning and procedural time. Standardized treatment protocols and data from well-designed USG-guided arthrocentesis randomized clinical trials were lacking. Clinical relevance: Arthrocentesis with or without USG guidance are both effective for treating patients with TMD to reduce pain and to improve MMO. USG-guided arthrocentesis was not found to be superior to conventional arthrocentesis.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/288018
ISSN
2021 Impact Factor: 3.606
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.088
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLeung, YY-
dc.contributor.authorWu, FHW-
dc.contributor.authorChan, HH-
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-05T12:06:39Z-
dc.date.available2020-10-05T12:06:39Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Investigations, 2020, v. 24 n. 11, p. 3771-3780-
dc.identifier.issn1432-6981-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/288018-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: This systematic review assessed the clinical question: ‘Does ultrasonography (USG)-guided arthrocentesis provide better outcomes than conventional arthrocentesis in patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD)?’ Materials and methods: The review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. An initial search was performed on electronic databases—including Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane Library—followed by manual and reference searches until the date September 27, 2019. The articles selected were evaluated for study and patient characteristics, arthrocentesis procedure details, and treatment outcomes (post-operative pain, maximum mouth opening (MMO), procedure time, and attempts of needle positioning). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group’s data extraction template and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Results: Out of the 325 initially identified articles, four studies with 144 patients were included in the final qualitative analysis. No significant differences were found in pain reduction and improved MMO between sample groups receiving conventional arthrocentesis and USG-guided arthrocentesis. Needle positioning attempts and procedural times were conflicting between the two groups. Conclusions: This systematic review found that the outcomes of USG-guided arthrocentesis were not superior to conventional arthrocentesis. Conflicting data was found in the attempts of needle positioning and procedural time. Standardized treatment protocols and data from well-designed USG-guided arthrocentesis randomized clinical trials were lacking. Clinical relevance: Arthrocentesis with or without USG guidance are both effective for treating patients with TMD to reduce pain and to improve MMO. USG-guided arthrocentesis was not found to be superior to conventional arthrocentesis.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherSpringer for German Society of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. The Journal's web site is located at http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00784/index.htm-
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Investigations-
dc.rightsThis is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in [insert journal title]. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/[insert DOI]-
dc.subjectUltrasonography-
dc.subjectArthrocentesis-
dc.subjectTemporomandibular disorder-
dc.subjectTemporomandibular joint-
dc.titleUltrasonography-guided arthrocentesis versus conventional arthrocentesis in treating internal derangement of temporomandibular joint: a systematic review-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailLeung, YY: mleung04@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityLeung, YY=rp01522-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00784-020-03408-z-
dc.identifier.pmid32594307-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85087024663-
dc.identifier.hkuros315204-
dc.identifier.volume24-
dc.identifier.issue11-
dc.identifier.spage3771-
dc.identifier.epage3780-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000544205500003-
dc.publisher.placeGermany-
dc.identifier.issnl1432-6981-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats