The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2025
Efficacy of Injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin Versus Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection in Degenerative Temporomandibular Joint.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Elmonofy Omar Samir Abdullah, Abdullah Abdel Aziz Baiomy, Hassan Mohammed Aly
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Degenerative joint disease is a chronic condition marked by the gradual breakdown in the articular cartilage, together with alterations in the underlying bone and surrounding soft tissues, leading to ongoing joint deterioration. This investigation was conducted to evaluate the differences between efficacy of injectable platelet rich fibrin (I-PRF) versus platelet rich plasma (PRP) injection in degenerative temporomandibular joint (TMJ).
METHODS: The investigation was conducted on a cohort of 20 patients aged over 18 years, both sexes, with unilateral or bilateral TMJ Osteoarthritis. Participants were evenly allocated into 2 groups (using conventional TMJ injection technique with the aid of facial anatomical landmarks): group I: underwent arthrocentesis followed by I-PRF injection and group II: underwent arthrocentesis followed by I-PRP injection.
RESULTS: Regarding PRP injection, mouth opening, lateral extrusion right, and lateral extrusion left were significantly different across the follow-up periods ( P <0.05). Regarding PRF injection, mouth opening, protrusion, and lateral extrusion, LT demonstrated significant variation over the follow-up intervals ( P <0.05). Comparison of operative time between arthrocentesis with PRF injection group I and arthrocentesis with PRP injection demonstrated a significant reduction in duration, which corresponded to decreased intraoperative pain, as prolonged procedures were associated with higher pain levels.
CONCLUSIONS: Arthrocentesis with I-PRF Injection showed superiority and could replace the current standard arthrocentesis with PRP for the pain relief of TMJ degenerative diseases. Arthrocentesis with I-PRF Injection decreased the consumed time and increased the efficacy of prolotherapy procedures.
METHODS: The investigation was conducted on a cohort of 20 patients aged over 18 years, both sexes, with unilateral or bilateral TMJ Osteoarthritis. Participants were evenly allocated into 2 groups (using conventional TMJ injection technique with the aid of facial anatomical landmarks): group I: underwent arthrocentesis followed by I-PRF injection and group II: underwent arthrocentesis followed by I-PRP injection.
RESULTS: Regarding PRP injection, mouth opening, lateral extrusion right, and lateral extrusion left were significantly different across the follow-up periods ( P <0.05). Regarding PRF injection, mouth opening, protrusion, and lateral extrusion, LT demonstrated significant variation over the follow-up intervals ( P <0.05). Comparison of operative time between arthrocentesis with PRF injection group I and arthrocentesis with PRP injection demonstrated a significant reduction in duration, which corresponded to decreased intraoperative pain, as prolonged procedures were associated with higher pain levels.
CONCLUSIONS: Arthrocentesis with I-PRF Injection showed superiority and could replace the current standard arthrocentesis with PRP for the pain relief of TMJ degenerative diseases. Arthrocentesis with I-PRF Injection decreased the consumed time and increased the efficacy of prolotherapy procedures.