www.sbdmj.com - Stomatologija - Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal

Stomatologija 2021; 23 (4): 95-100 176 KB

Arthrocentesis techniques used in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: Literature review

Riina Gudova^{1, 2}, Ülle Voog-Oras^{1, 3}, Oksana Ivask^{1, 2}

Summary

Objective. The article presents a systematic overview of single- and double-puncture techniques of arthrocentesis methods published in the Scopus database during 2016–2020, highlighting the advantages and shortcomings of different methods.

Materials and methods. A search was conducted in the Scopus database using the terms “TMJ OR temporomandibular OR mandibular OR jaw AND arthrocentesis”. Arthrocentesis techniques were described and categorized mostly as single- or double-needle ones.

Results. The literature reviewed in the article represents studies of arthrocentesis treatment in 2675 patients involving 2740 joints.

Arthrocentesis techniques can mainly be divided into single- and double-needle techniques. Single-needle techniques are subcategorized into type 1 and type 2, of which the first is a single-needle cannula technique where inflow and outflow pass through the same lumen, while the second uses a Y-shaped device, which has two ports and two lumens. Double needle techniques use two needles – one for the inflow and the other for the outflow.

The literature found in the Scopus database during the period investigated presents 28% of single-puncture (type 1 – 10%, type 2 – 15%, single puncture with distention of the upper joint compartment – 3%), 69% of double-puncture, 1% of ancillary second-puncture methods and 1% employing a CBCT-based tragus-supported guide with 3 needles.

Conclusion. All of the arthrocentesis techniques described in the literature are effective as treatment modalities, none appears to be superior to others. The selection of the method to be used depends on the surgeon´s choice and experience.

Key words: arthrocentesis, minimally invasive surgery, temporomandibular joint, temporomandibular disorders.

Received: 31 08 2021

Accepted for publishing: 20 12 2021

¹Institute of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

²Department of Facial and Jaw Surgery, Stomatology Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia

³Denture Centre, Stomatology Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia

Address correspondence to Riina Gudova, Institute of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tartu, Puusepa 1a, 50406 Tartu, Estonia.

E-mail address: riina.gudova@kliinikum.ee



	Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal

December, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 4 CONTENTS REVIEW Arthrocentesis techniques used in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: Literature review Riina Gudova, Ülle Voog-Oras, Oksana Ivask 95-100 SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes after treatment of odontogenic cysts with decompression followed by surgery Aydin Ozkan, Sara Samur Erguven, Gurkan Rasit Bayar, Metin Sencimen 101 -105 REVIEW Orthodontic canine substitution vs. implant-supported prosthetic replacement for maxillary permanent lateral incisor agenesis: A systematic review Justina Šikšnelytė, Raimonda Guntulytė, Kristina Lopatienė 106 -113 SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES Simvastatin in polymer bioscaffold for bone regeneration. An in vitro and in vivo analysis Swati Gupta, Pratibha Gopalkrishna, Usha Yogendra Nayak, Kishore Ginjupalli, Thayyil Sivaraman Hrishi, Chetana Chandrashekar, Raghu A R, Pallavi K, Lakshmi P 114-120 © 2022 Stomatologija		Stomatologija 2021; 23 (4): 95-100 176 KB Arthrocentesis techniques used in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: Literature review Riina Gudova^{1, 2}, Ülle Voog-Oras^{1, 3}, Oksana Ivask^{1, 2} Summary Objective. The article presents a systematic overview of single- and double-puncture techniques of arthrocentesis methods published in the Scopus database during 2016–2020, highlighting the advantages and shortcomings of different methods. Materials and methods. A search was conducted in the Scopus database using the terms “TMJ OR temporomandibular OR mandibular OR jaw AND arthrocentesis”. Arthrocentesis techniques were described and categorized mostly as single- or double-needle ones. Results. The literature reviewed in the article represents studies of arthrocentesis treatment in 2675 patients involving 2740 joints. Arthrocentesis techniques can mainly be divided into single- and double-needle techniques. Single-needle techniques are subcategorized into type 1 and type 2, of which the first is a single-needle cannula technique where inflow and outflow pass through the same lumen, while the second uses a Y-shaped device, which has two ports and two lumens. Double needle techniques use two needles – one for the inflow and the other for the outflow. The literature found in the Scopus database during the period investigated presents 28% of single-puncture (type 1 – 10%, type 2 – 15%, single puncture with distention of the upper joint compartment – 3%), 69% of double-puncture, 1% of ancillary second-puncture methods and 1% employing a CBCT-based tragus-supported guide with 3 needles. Conclusion. All of the arthrocentesis techniques described in the literature are effective as treatment modalities, none appears to be superior to others. The selection of the method to be used depends on the surgeon´s choice and experience. Key words: arthrocentesis, minimally invasive surgery, temporomandibular joint, temporomandibular disorders. Received: 31 08 2021 Accepted for publishing: 20 12 2021 ¹Institute of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia ²Department of Facial and Jaw Surgery, Stomatology Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia ³Denture Centre, Stomatology Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia Address correspondence to Riina Gudova, Institute of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tartu, Puusepa 1a, 50406 Tartu, Estonia. E-mail address: riina.gudova@kliinikum.ee