Oral diseases · 2026
Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Versus Traditional Landmark-Based Joint Lavage and Intra-Articular Injection for TMD: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Xu Fangfang, Cui Hao, Han Tingwei, Ahmadi Sina, Bai Le, Liang Xiang, Xie Linyang, Gong Yuxin, Wang Tao, Qi Kun, Tu Junbo, Na Sijia
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the clinical outcomes of ultrasound-guided temporomandibular joint lavage and intra-articular injection with traditional methods for treating temporomandibular disorders (TMD), aiming to offer valuable insights for clinical.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty TMD patients (20 per group) were randomly assigned to receive either traditional temporomandibular joint lavage and intra-articular injection or an ultrasound-guided approach. Immediate postoperative MRI assessed the joint cavity.
RESULTS: Ultrasound guidance significantly reduced the number of needle attempts compared to the traditional approach (p < 0.01). Immediate post-procedure MRI showed no significant difference in superior joint cavity injection success between groups. However, the ultrasound-guided group had a significantly better success rate for the inferior joint cavity (p < 0.05). Three days post-procedure, the ultrasound-guided group demonstrated significantly better pain relief and maximum mouth opening (p < 0.05). At seven days post-procedure, there were no significant differences in pain levels or maximum mouth opening between the two groups (p > 0.05). The occurrence of postoperative complications was similar in both groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-guided treatment is a precise and minimally invasive method for treating TMD, offering better outcomes in terms of pain relief and joint function.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty TMD patients (20 per group) were randomly assigned to receive either traditional temporomandibular joint lavage and intra-articular injection or an ultrasound-guided approach. Immediate postoperative MRI assessed the joint cavity.
RESULTS: Ultrasound guidance significantly reduced the number of needle attempts compared to the traditional approach (p < 0.01). Immediate post-procedure MRI showed no significant difference in superior joint cavity injection success between groups. However, the ultrasound-guided group had a significantly better success rate for the inferior joint cavity (p < 0.05). Three days post-procedure, the ultrasound-guided group demonstrated significantly better pain relief and maximum mouth opening (p < 0.05). At seven days post-procedure, there were no significant differences in pain levels or maximum mouth opening between the two groups (p > 0.05). The occurrence of postoperative complications was similar in both groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-guided treatment is a precise and minimally invasive method for treating TMD, offering better outcomes in terms of pain relief and joint function.