Search

Objective To evaluate ultrasonography (US) guidance on the single-puncture temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthrocentesis technique. Methods Twenty-four patients were randomly divided into two groups (n = 12 in each group), and single puncture arthrocentesis (SPA) was performed with and without US guidance in groups 1 and 2. During the one-year follow-up period, the groups were statistically evaluated by the visual analog scale for pain, maximum mouth opening, lateral excursion, and protrusion within each group and between the two groups. Results Both treatment groups showed significant improvement, compared to the baseline levels for almost all outcome variables. However, there were no statistically significant differences between groups 1 and 2 (p > 0.05). Conclusion US guidance can be used for cannula placement in SPA. However, the outcome results are the same with or without its use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To discuss advantages and disadvantages of TMJ arthrocentesis techniques, identifying modifications as reported in the literature.Methods: A PubMed web-based search was carried out, using the terms TMJ and arthrocentesis, to determine the scope of coverage in well-documented articles in English.Results: Among 237 articles, 12 distinct techniques were described for TMJ arthrocentesis in 12 articles. Among 12 techniques, 5 were classified as double puncture arthrocentesis (DPA) and 7 as single puncture arthrocentesis (SPA). In total, 17 well documented articles about SPA were found in literature.Discussion: Arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) was first described in 1991. To make the traditional procedure even less invasive, many arthrocentesis methods have been described. However, in 2015, TMJ arthrocentesis techniques were divided into two groups to limit the complexities surrounding the concepts related to TMJ arthrocentesis techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]