Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

Login 
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 94    
     


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 124-129
Temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis: A prospective study and audit of 500 joints of central India


1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology and Microbiology, Seema Dental College, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sardar Patel Postgraduate Institute of Dental and Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Utter Pradesh, India

Date of Submission12-Oct-2017
Date of Acceptance23-Feb-2018
Date of Web Publication24-Apr-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Shailesh Kumar
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Rishikesh, Uttarakhand
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_361_17

Rights and Permissions

   Abstract 

Aim and Objectives: Aim of this study was to compare prospective effectiveness of arthrocentesis of temporomandibular joint by single- and double-needle technique in central India population.
Materials and Methods: Out of 230 patients, 500 joints were included in the study and were randomly selected into two groups: single needle and double needle. Follow-up of patients were done as 1 week, 1 and 3 months. (The statistical analysis was done using SPSS [Statistical Package for Social Sciences] Version 15.0 Statistical Analysis Software).
Results: Both techniques were equally effective at reducing pain and increasing the maximal mouth opening. The single-needle technique was easier to perform and required a shorter operative time (P < 0.01).
Conclusion: the results obtained indicate that single versus double arthrocentesis techniques were equally effective in reducing the pain and increasing the mouth opening and reducing the clicking sound. However, single-needle technique was easier to perform and required a shorter operative time.


Keywords: Arthrocentesis, double-needle technique, single-needle techniques


How to cite this article:
Kumar S, Kiran K, Yadav A. Temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis: A prospective study and audit of 500 joints of central India. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2018;8:124-9

How to cite this URL:
Kumar S, Kiran K, Yadav A. Temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis: A prospective study and audit of 500 joints of central India. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent [serial online] 2018 [cited 2019 Dec 8];8:124-9. Available from: http://www.jispcd.org/text.asp?2018/8/2/124/230912



   Introduction Top


Arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) was first described by D. W. Nitzan in 1991 as the simplest form of surgical therapy with the aim of washing out inflammatory mediators, releasing the articular disc, and disrupting adhesions between the surface of the disc and the joint fossa by hydraulic pressure of the lavage solution. There are essentially two types of therapy for temporomandibular disorders (1) conservative and (2) surgical. Conservative treatment includes bite splints, rehabilitation exercises, isometric exercises, massage of the muscles, analgesic treatment, thermotherapy, or laser therapy. Surgical treatment can be divided into invasive (open) and minimally invasive (arthrocentesis and arthroscopy).[1]

Ringer's lactate and physiological saline are commonly used to lavage the joint by the use of a needle introduced into the upper joint space after local anesthetic infiltration of the overlying skin. This compartment will take up to 5 mL of fluid, and by filling under pressure, any minor adhesions are broken down or lysed. A second needle was then placed into the same joint compartment to achieve continuous flow of fluid and to allow thorough washing or lavage of the joint.[2]

It was estimated that approximately 50–100 mL of total arthrocentesis volume was sufficient for a therapeutic lavage of the superior joint space of TMJ.[3]

Arthrocentesis was considered as an effective minimally invasive surgical treatment for TMJ closed lock based.[4]

In TMJ arthrocentesis, irrigation pump from a surgical and dental implant motor, providing the highest hydraulic pressure reported in the literature for TMJ lavage.[5],[6]

In particular, the present study underlined that baseline physical findings and the type of intervention (two-needle vs. single-needle approach) were not predictors for treatment effectiveness in patients with TMJ inflammatory-degenerative disease. Furthermore, studies related to the presence of interleukin (IL), prostaglandin, and several disc-related disorders (Disc rupture) may be a variable to evaluate the outcome of procedure.


   Materials and Methods Top


The prospective study was carried out in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery over the period 2013–2016. Patients who reported to the dental outpatient Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of Sardar Patel Postgraduate Institute of Dental and Medical Sciences, Lucknow (U.P) with clearance from institutional ethics committee [SPPGIDMS 05(05/12/ Dec 2013)]. Patient's diagnosed with TMJ disorders such as inflammatory disorders, adhesion of articular disc, disruption of disc, and disc-related arthralgias was selected were included in this study. Informed written consent was obtained from each patient after explaining the nature and outcome of procedure and the possible consequences and complications.

Preoperative Alprazolam (0.25 mg, H.S [1 day before]) and stat dose of amoxicillin (2 g orally) was given 45 min before procedure.

Sample size

Five hundred joints randomly included over the study period time (All the patients came to the department between time period 2013 and 2016 with TMJ arthralgia) was included in the study.

Group design

All the cases was divided into two groups:

  1. Group A (single-needle group)
  2. Group B (double-needle group).


Two hundred and fifty joints were studied in each group.

All patients was given postoperative antibiotics (amoxicillin 500 mg TDS) and analgesic (ibuprofen + paracetamol + chlorzoxazone) TDS for 3 days.

Periodic follow-up was done as per scheduled guidelines.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was done using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) Version 15.0, (IBM, USA) statistical analysis software. The values were represented in number (%) and mean ± standard deviation. Chi-square test, Mann–Whitney U-test, The Wilcoxon-signed rank statistic, Student “t”-test, paired “t”-test tests were used for the evaluation of different data.


   Results Top


The present study was conducted in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sardar Patel Postgraduate Institute of Dental and Medical Sciences, Lucknow, to compare arthrocentesis of TMJ by single- and double-needle technique [Table 1]. Out of 230 patients, 500 joints were included in the study and were randomly selected in two groups as under:
Table 1: Distribution of study population

Click here to view


Proportion of females and males in both the groups was found to be similar. In both, the groups majority of participants were female (66.67%), and the rest were male (33.33%) [Table 2].
Table 2: Between-group comparison of demographic variables

Click here to view


Intraoperative time in Group A ranged from 5 to 8 min with a median of 6 min while in Group B ranged from 8 to 12 min and median 10 min. Mean intraoperative time in Group B (9.60 ± 1.40 min) was found to be higher than that of Group (5.87 ± 1.06 min). The difference in intraoperative time of Group A and Group B was found to be statistically significant (P< 0.001) [Table 3].
Table 3: Between-group comparison of intraoperative time

Click here to view


At 1-week p.o. pain score of Group A (1.00 ± 1.13) was found to be higher than that of Group B (0.73 ± 1.28) though this difference was not found to be statistically significant (P = 0.325).

At 1 month p.o. and at 2 months p.o. pain score of Group A (0.67 ± 1.18) was found to be higher than that of Group B (0.47 ± 1.13), but this difference was not found to be statistically significant (P = 0.567).

At 3 months p.o. pain score of Group A (0.80 ± 1.21) was found to be higher than that of Group B (0.60 ± 1.18), but this difference was not found to be statistically significant (P = 0.595) [Table 4]a.

In Group A, at 1 week p.o., a decline of 77.61% (3.47 ± 1.36) in pain score from baseline (before surgery) was observed. Decline of 85.07% (3.80 ± 1.37) in pain was observed at 1 month and at 2 months p.o. At 3 months p.o., decline in pain was found to be 82.09% (3.67 ± 1.35). Change in pain from baseline was found to be statistically highly significant (P< 0.001) at 1 week p.o., 1 month p.o., 2 months p.o., and at 3 months p.o.

In Group B, at 1 week p.o., a decline of 84.72% (4.07 ± 1.67) in pain score from baseline (before surgery) was observed. Decline of 90.28% (4.33 ± 1.50) in pain was observed at 1 month and at 2 months p.o. At 3 months p.o., decline in pain was found to be 87.50% (4.20 ± 1.52). Change in pain from baseline was found to be statistically highly significant (P< 0.001) at 1 week p.o., 1 month p.o., 2 months p.o., and at 3 months p.o. [Table 4]b.
Table 4a: Between-group comparison of pain at different time intervals. Table 4b: Intragroup change in pain from baseline (before surgery) at different time intervals (Wilcoxon signed-rank test)



Click here to view


At 1 week p.o. mouth opening in Group A and Group B ranged from 32 to 50 mm. Mean mouth opening of Group A (42.13 ± 4.45 mm) was found to be higher than that of Group B (41.20 ± 4.83); however, difference in mean mouth opening between the groups was not found to be statistically significant (P = 0.586). Thereafter, at 1 month p.o., 2 months p.o., and at 3 months p.o. mouth opening remained same as at 1 week p.o [Table 5]a.

In Group A, an increment of 9.34% (3.60 ± 2.26 mm) in mouth opening from its baseline value was found at 1 week p.o. This change in mouth opening was found to be statistically highly significant (P< 0.001). No further change in mouth opening was observed at 1 month, 2 months and 3 months p.o.

In Group B, an increment of 8.99% (3.40 ± 2.13 mm) in mouth opening from its baseline value was found at 1-week p.o. This change in mouth opening was found to be statistically highly significant (P< 0.001). No further change in mouth opening was observed at 1, 2 and 3 months p.o [Table 5]b.
Table 5a: Between-group comparison of mouth opening at different time intervals. Table 5b: Intragroup change in mouth opening from baseline (before surgery) at different time intervals (paired t-test)



Click here to view


At rest of the follow-up periods, i.e., at 1 week p.o., 1 month p.o., 2 months p.o., and 3 months p.o. incidence of TMJ clicking was higher in Group A (46.67%) as compared to Group B (20.00%); however, difference was not found to be statistically significant (P = 0.121) [Table 6].
Table 6: Between-group comparison of incidence of temporomandibular joint clicking at different time intervals

Click here to view


Postoperative facial nerve damage was found in none of the patients of either groups.


   Discussion Top


In our study, the difference in intraoperative time of single-needle technique and double-needle technique was found to be statistically significant, [Table 3]. A similar result was in accordance with Talaat W, Ghoneim MM, Elsholkamy M. 2016,[7] in which they suggested the advantages of single-needle technique as compared to traditional two-needle arthrocentesis would be faster execution time.[8]

Similar to the studies of several authors, single-puncture reduces patient pain in the postoperative period, reducing the need for extracare postoperatively.[9]

Many authors suggested the use of a single and more stable needle should limit the traumatism of the intervention, so reducing pain and disability in the postoperative phase.[10]

Arthrocentesis as the simplest form of surgery in the TMJ, aiming to release the articular disc and to remove adhesions between the disc surface and the mandibular fossa by means of hydraulic pressure from irrigation of the upper chamber of the TMJ.[11] Pathophysiology of TMJ disorder could be described by several theories: (i) Changes in the shape and position of the articular disk, (ii) biomechanical and biochemical changes in TMJ, and (iii) joint overloading may cause hypoxia and on termination of overloading reoxygenation occurs.[12]

The hypoxia-reperfusion cycle can lead to the release and production of reactive oxygen species leading to degradation of hyaluronic acid and reduced viscosity of synovial fluid, resulting in more friction and adhesion of articular surfaces.[13]

Inflammatory cytokines in symptomatic TMJs include IL-1, IL-6, IL-8, and tumor necrosis factor-alfa while anti-inflammatory cytokines include IL-4, tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMP)-1, TIMP-2, and tumor growth factor-beta 16. In the course of the inflammation, monocytes, and macrophages quickly release IL-1 as well as IL-6. Fibroblasts and chondrocytes also have this ability, but at the same time, through the action of IL-6, they release TIMP as well.[14],[15]

Further, IL-6 was detected in synovial cells and mononuclear cells infiltrating the edge of the blood vessels. These cells produce IL-6 in both synovial tissue and synovial fluid.[16]

Lavage of the upper joint space reduces pain by removing inflammatory mediators from the joint, increasing mandibular mobility by removing intra-articular adhesions, eliminating the negative pressure within the joint, recovering disc, and fossa space and improving disc mobility, which reduces the mechanical obstruction caused by the anterior position of the disc.[17],[18]

There was a significant decrease in pain scores at 1 week, 1 and 3 months with double-needle technique as reported by several authors.[19],[11],[20] Similar results were evaluated in the studies of many with double-needle technique at intervals of 1, 3 weeks, 3 and 6 months after the procedure with the improvement with emphasis on pain.[21]

Similar results were suggested by many authors shown significant improvement with respect to baseline levels were achieved in both treatment groups. The rate of improvement was not significantly different between the two treatment protocols in any of the outcome variables.[19]

Similar findings were seen in studies of several authors. They found the success rate was 70% at 6 months follow-up; it increased to 78.9% over the 3 years of follow-up.[22]

Similar findings were observed by many other authors. They observed good results in all patients with immediate improvement in mouth opening with double-needle technique.[21]

In our study, comparison of the incidence of TMJ clicking at different time interval was done. Incidence of TMJ clicking at baseline (before surgery) was similar in Group A (46.67%) and Group B (46.67%).

At rest of the follow-up periods i.e., at 1st week, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd month postoperatively incidence of TMJ clicking was higher in Group A (46.67%) as compared to Group B (20.00%) but difference was not found to be statistically significant.

In our study out of 500 joints, 400 initially complained of Clicking. At the end of 1 year, 248 (62%) patients stated no evidence of clicking were observed in the studies of many authors.[20]

Similar findings were demonstrated in the studies of many authors that clicking decreased in (63%) patients remaining (37%) patients it was absent in 1 week. Postoperatively after 1-month clicking decreased in 54%, absent in 27%, increased in 8.3%, and still present in 8.3% patients respectively. At 3 months clicking decreased in (36%) patients, absent in (27%), increased in 2 (18%), and present in 2 (18%).

In our study, postoperative facial nerve damage was found in none of the patients of either groups.

Results of our study shows that both the techniques have similar outcome in terms of pain, mouth opening, clicking, and facial nerve injury.

This may be explained as after needle inserted in the upper compartment and pressure exerted by forced fluid not only detaches adhered disc but also washes inflammatory exudates in inflammed joint which can be achieved through single-needle technique also.

Results of our study shows that both the techniques have similar outcome in terms of pain, mouth opening, clicking, and facial nerve injury.

In particular, the present study underlined that baseline physical findings and the type of intervention (two-needle vs. single-needle approach) were not predictors for treatment effectiveness in patients with TMJ inflammatory-degenerative disease. Furthermore, studies related to the presence of IL, prostaglandin and several disc-related disorders (disc rupture) may be a variable to evaluate the outcome of procedure. A more multicentric study with large sample size and long follow-up duration with biochemical evaluation of collected lavage fluid can make future study more informative.

Systematic review on this could help in better understanding about both the techniques and can be considered as the first-treatment option for patients with painful hypomobilized TMJ.


   Conclusion Top


The results obtained indicate that single versus double arthrocentesis techniques were equally effective in reducing the pain and increasing the mouth opening and reducing the clicking sound. However, single-needle technique was easier to perform and required a shorter operative time.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Tvrdy P, Heinz P, Pink R. Arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint: A review. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2013;157:1-4.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Guarda-Nardini L, Manfredini D, Ferronato G. Arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint: A proposal for a single-needle technique. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:483-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Dimitroulis G, Dolwick MF, Martinez A. Temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis and lavage for the treatment of closed lock: A follow-up study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;33:23-6.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Emshoff R, Rudisch A, Bösch R, Strobl H. Prognostic indicators of the outcome of arthrocentesis: A short-term follow-up study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;96:12-8.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Alkan A, Kilic E. A new approach to arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;38:85-6.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Nitzan DW, Dolwick MF, Martinez GA. Temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis: A simplified treatment for severe, limited mouth opening. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;49:1163-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.
Hosaka H, Murakami K, Goto K, Iizuka T. Outcome of arthrocentesis for temporomandibular joint with closed lock at 3 years follow-up. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996;82:501-4.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.
Zardeneta G, Milam SB, Schmitz JP. Elution of proteins by continuous temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;55:709-16.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.
Frost DE, Kendell BD. Part II: The use of arthrocentesis for treatment of temporomandibular joint disorders. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:583-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.
Guarda-Nardini L, Stifano M, Brombin C, Salmaso L, Manfredini D. A one-year case series of arthrocentesis with hyaluronic acid injections for temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;103:e14-22.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.
Kaneyama K, Segami N, Sato J, Fujimura K, Nagao T, Yoshimura H, et al. Prognostic factors in arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint: Comparison of bradykinin, leukotriene B4, prostaglandin E2, and substance P level in synovial fluid between successful and unsuccessful cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:242-7.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Öreroǧlu AR, Özkaya Ö, Öztürk MB, Bingöl D, Akan M. Concentric-needle cannula method for single-puncture arthrocentesis in temporomandibular joint disease: An inexpensive and feasible technique. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69:2334-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Guarda-Nardini L, Olivo M, Ferronato G, Salmaso L, Bonnini S, Manfredini D, et al. Treatment effectiveness of arthrocentesis plus hyaluronic acid injections in different age groups of patients with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:2048-56.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Grossmann E. Arthrocentesis techniques applied to arthrogenictemporomandibular joint disorders. Rev Dor Sao Paulo 2012;13:374-81.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Tvrdy P, Heinz P, Pink R. Arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint: A review. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2015;159:31-4.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.
Alkan A, Etöz OA. A new anatomical landmark to simplify temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;48:310-1.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Neeli AS, Umarani M, Kotrashetti SM, Baliga S. Arthrocentesis for the treatment of internal derangement of the temporomandibular joint. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2010;9:350-4.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]    
18.
Thomas H, Neelakantan RS, Thomas TK. Role of arthrocentesis in the management of acute closed lock of TM joint: A Pilot study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2012;11:390-3.  Back to cited text no. 18
[PUBMED]    
19.
Kuruvilla VE, Prasad K. Arthrocentesis in TMJ internal derangement: A Prospective study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2012;11:53-6.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]    
20.
Reddy R, Reddy VS, Reddy S, Reddy S. Arthrocentesis – A minimally invasive treatment of temporomandibular joint dysfunction: Our experience. J Dr NTR Univ Health Sci 2013;2:196-200.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Grossmann E, Guilherme Vargas Pasqual P, Poluha RL, Iwaki LCV, Iwaki Filho L, Setogutti ÊT, et al. Single-needle arthrocentesis with upper compartment distension versus conventional two-needle arthrocentesis: Randomized clinical trial. Pain Res Manag 2017;2017:2435263.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Talaat W, Ghoneim MM, Elsholkamy M. Single-needle arthrocentesis (Shepard cannula) vs. Double-needle arthrocentesis for treating disc displacement without reduction. Cranio 2016;34:296-302.  Back to cited text no. 22
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]

This article has been cited by
1 Investigation of the effects of temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis on blood volume of the retinal structures
Aydin Keskinruzgar,Dilek Aynur Cankal,Mahmut Koparal,Ali Simsek,Ayse Sevgi Karadag
Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. 2019; 19(1): 37
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (533 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1191    
    Printed15    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded123    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal