Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 350–354 | Cite as

Arthrocentesis for the Treatment of Internal Derangement of the Temporomandibular Joint

  • Arati S. Neeli
  • Meenaxi Umarani
  • S. M. Kotrashetti
  • Shridhar Baliga
Clinical Study

Abstract

Objective

The study aims to evaluate the efficacy of arthrocentesis in the treatment of internal derangement of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ).

Study Design

Thirty patients with TMJ internal derangement underwent arthrocentesis using saline. Pain using visual analog scale, maximum mouth opening, joint noises and mandible deviation were documented pre-operatively and post-operatively. Patients were followed for 1 year. Statistical analysis of pain was done by Wilcoxon signed Rank’s test and dysfunction by students paired t test.

Results

The mean pre-operative pain was 4.8 ± 2.65 and post-operatively at 1 year was 0.27 ± 0.45 with an average decrease of 4.72 (P = 0.000). The mean maximal mouth opening pre-operatively was 29.8 ± 2.35 mm and post-operatively 41.9 ± 2.48 mm at 1 year. The mean increase in the mouth opening was 12.1 ± 3.0 mm (P = 0.000).

Conclusion

Arthrocentesis is simple, minimally invasive procedure with less risk of complications and significant benefits in patients with TMJ internal derangement.

Keywords

Temporomandibular joint Internal derangement Arthrocentesis 

References

  1. 1.
    Barkin S, Weinberg S (2000) Internal derangements of the TMJ: the role of arthroscopic surgery and arthrocentesis. J Can Dent Assoc 69:199–203Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    William A, Carvagal Daniel M, Laskin (2000) Long term evaluation of arthrocentesis for the treatment of internal derangements of the temporomandibular joint. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:852–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Franklin Dolwick M (1995) Intra articular disc displacement part I: its questionable role in temporomandibular joint pathology. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53:1069–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    David Frost E, Barry Kendell D (1999) “The use of arthrocentesis for treatment of temporomandibular joint disorders”. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 57:583–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alpaslan C et al (2000) Effect of arthrocentesis and sodium hyaluronate injection on nitrite, nitrate, and thiobarbiturate acid- reactive substance levels in the synovial fluid. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 89:686–690Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nishimura M, Segami N, Kaneyama K, Sato J, Fujimura K (2004) Comparison of cytokinin level in synovial fluid between successful and unsuccessful cases in arthrocentesis of temporomandibular joint. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62(3):284–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dorrit W, Nitzan et al (1991) Temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis simplified treatment for severe, limited mouth opening. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49:1163–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaneyama K, Segami N, Nishimura M, Sato J, Fujimura K, Yoshimura H (2004) The ideal volume for removing bradykinin, interleukin-6 and protein from the temporomandibular joint by Arthrocentesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62(6):657–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moses J et al (1989) The effect of arthroscopic surgical lysis and lavage of the superior joint space on temporomandibular joint disc position and mobility. J Maxillofac Surg 47:674–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dimitroulis G, Dolwick MF, Martinez A (1995) TMJ arthrocentesis and lavage for the treatment of closed lock. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 33:23–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kirk L, Fridrich et al (1996) Prospective comparison of arthroscopy and arthrocentesis for temporomandibular joint disorders. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 54:816–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alpaslan C, Dolowick MF, Heft MW (2003) ”Five year study of retrospective evaluation of temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis”. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 32:263–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dorrit W, Nitzan (2001) The use of arthrocentesis for the treatment of osteoarthritic temporomandibular joint. J.Oral Maxillo Surg 59:1154–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Emshoff R (2005) “Clinical factors affecting the outcome of arthrocentesis and hydraulic distention of temporomandibular joint” oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology. Endodontics 100(4):409–414Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yura S et al (2003) Can arthrocentesis release intracapsular adhesions? Arthroscopic findings before and after irrigation under sufficient hydraulic pressure. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 61:1253–1256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yura S, Totsuka Y (2005) Relationship between effectiveness of arthrocentesis under sufficient pressure and condition of temporomandibular joint. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63(2):225–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Howard Israel A et al (2006) The relationship between temporomandibular joint synovitis and adhesions: pathologic mechanisms and clinical implications for surgical management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64:1064–1074Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dorrit W, Nitzan (2006) “Arthrocentesis–incentives journal for using this minimally invasive approach for temporomandibular disorders”. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 18:311–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gokhan H, Alpaslan C, Alpaslan (2001) Efficacy of temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis with and without injection of sodium hyaluronate in treatment of internal derangements. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 59:613–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arati S. Neeli
    • 1
  • Meenaxi Umarani
    • 1
  • S. M. Kotrashetti
    • 1
  • Shridhar Baliga
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryK.L.E VK Institute of Dental SciencesBelgaumIndia

Personalised recommendations