Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
L. Guarda-Nardini, G. Ferronato,
D. Manfredini
TMD Clinic, Department of Maxillofacial
Surgery, University of Padova, Italy
# 2011 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
507
508
Guarda-Nardini et al.
Table 1. Baseline values for the outcome variables. Comparison between patients undergoing
the two-needle (TN) and single-needle (SN) protocols.
Outcome parameters
TN protocol
(N = 40)
SN protocol
(N = 38)
6.1 1.7
6.4 2.5
3.8 3.3
2.2 0.7
37.0 8.4
6.8 2.4
7.4 2.8
6.4 2.3
6.4 1.6
5.9 2.2
2.9 2.6
1.9 0.6
40.2 7.8
7.8 2.2
7.8 3.1
7.4 2.4
(p < 0.001),
functional
limitation
(p < 0.001), mouth opening (p < 0.001),
right (p < 0.001) and left laterotrusion
(p < 0.001), and protrusion (p = 0.008).
The rate of improvement was not significantly different between the two treatment protocols in any of the outcome
variables (p-values ranged between
Significance
0.406
0.326
0.681
0.093
0.086
0.070
0.526
0.094
Discussion
Fig. 1. Chewing efficiency values (010 VAS scale). Changes over time in the two treatment groups.
Fig. 2. Pain at chewing levels (010 VAS scale). Changes over time in the two treatment groups.
Fig. 3. Pain at rest levels (010 VAS scale). Changes over time in the two treatment groups.
Fig. 4. Functional limitation levels (04 Likert-type scale). Changes over time in the two treatment groups.
Fig. 5. Mouth opening values (in mm). Changes over time in the two treatment groups.
509
510
Guarda-Nardini et al.
Fig. 6. Right laterotrusion values (in mm). Changes over time in the two treatment groups.
Fig. 7. Left laterotrusion values (in mm). Changes over time in the two treatment groups.
Fig. 8. Protrusion values (in mm). Changes over time in the two treatment groups.
TN protocol
(N = 40)
41.6 72.1
63.6 43.9
39.1 62.4
51.6 43.3
SN protocol
(N = 38)
33.5 37.0
56.2 45.8
40.7 59.8
43.4 46.7
Significance
0.539
0.471
0.909
0.423
Table 3. Changes at the end of the follow up period with respect to baseline values for the jaw
range of motion (values in mm). Comparison between patients undergoing the two-needle (TN)
and single-needle (SN) protocols. The expected sign for improvement is given in parentheses.
Outcome parameters
Mouth opening (+)
Right laterotrusion (+)
Left laterotrusion (+)
Protrusion (+)
TN protocol
(N = 40)
SN protocol
(N = 38)
Significance
4.0 5.6
1.6 2.6
1.5 3.2
1.3 2.5
4.0 6.7
1.3 2.2
1.7 2.9
0.4 2.4
0.970
0.553
0.847
0.142
511
512
Guarda-Nardini et al.
None.
Competing interests
None declared.
13.
Ethical approval
Not required.
14.
References
1. Alkan A, Kilic E. A new approach to arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint. Int
J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;38:856.
2. Alpaslan GH, Alpaslan C. Efficacy of temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis with and
without injection of hyaluronic acid in treatment of internal derangements. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;59:6138.
3. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M,
Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gtzsche PC, Lang
T. The revised CONSORT statement for
reporting randomized trials: explanation
and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:
663694.
4. Bjrnland T, Gjrum AA, Mystad A.
Osteoarthritis of the temporomandibular
joint: an evaluation of the effects and complications of corticosteroid injection compared with injection with sodium
hyaluronate. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:5839.
5. Dworkin S, LeResche L. Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders:
review, criteria examinations and specifications, critique. J Craniomandib Disord Fac
Oral Pain 1992;6:30155.
6. Ehrlich GE, Osteoarthritis. In: Rakel BE,
Bope ET, editors. Conns current therapy.
58th ed. New York: Elsevier; 2006 . p. 921
5.
7. Greene CS, Goddard G, Macaluso GM,
Mauro G. Topical review: placebo responses
and therapeutic responses. How are they
related? J Orofac Pain 2009;23:93107.
8. Guarda-Nardini L, Masiero S, Marioni G.
Conservative treatment of temporomandibular joint osteoarthrosis: intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid. J Oral Rehabil
2005;32:72934.
9. 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;103:1422.
10. 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;106:4836.
11. Guarda-Nardini L, Ferronato G, Favero L,
Manfredini D. Predictive factors of hyaluronic acid injections for short-term effectiveness for TMJ degenerative joint disease. J
Oral Rehabil 2011;38:31520.
12. Guo C, Shi Z, Revington P. Arthrocentesis
and lavage for treating temporomandibular
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
513