Journal of stomatology, oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2023
Intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma vs hyaluronic acid as an adjunct to TMJ arthrocentesis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Li Jian, Chen Hongyi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to find out if there is any difference in outcomes with the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or hyaluronic acid (HA) intra-articular injections after temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis.
METHODS: A systematic search of the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was undertaken up to 5th May 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PRP with HA after TMJ arthrocentesis were included.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs were eligible. Pooled analysis failed to demonstrate any significant difference in MMO between PRP and HA groups at 1 month (MD: 0.21 95 % CI: -1.29, 1.70), 3 months (MD: 0.92 95 % CI: -2.96, 4.80), and 6 months (MD: -0.05 95 % CI: -2.08, 1.97). The inter-study heterogeneity was high with I2 values of 85 %, 98 %, and 81 % respectively. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in pain scores between the PRP and HA groups at 1 month (MD: 0.42 95 % CI: -2.25, 3.10), 3 months (MD: 0.90 95 % CI: -1.60, 3.41), and 6 months (MD: 0.06 95 % CI: -0.92, 1.04) with inter-study heterogeneity of 99 %, 99 %, and 92 % respectively.
CONCLUSION: Intra-articular use of PRP or HA after TMJ arthrocentesis may lead to comparable clinical outcomes. The current evidence is low-quality and fraught with high heterogeneity.
METHODS: A systematic search of the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was undertaken up to 5th May 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PRP with HA after TMJ arthrocentesis were included.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs were eligible. Pooled analysis failed to demonstrate any significant difference in MMO between PRP and HA groups at 1 month (MD: 0.21 95 % CI: -1.29, 1.70), 3 months (MD: 0.92 95 % CI: -2.96, 4.80), and 6 months (MD: -0.05 95 % CI: -2.08, 1.97). The inter-study heterogeneity was high with I2 values of 85 %, 98 %, and 81 % respectively. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in pain scores between the PRP and HA groups at 1 month (MD: 0.42 95 % CI: -2.25, 3.10), 3 months (MD: 0.90 95 % CI: -1.60, 3.41), and 6 months (MD: 0.06 95 % CI: -0.92, 1.04) with inter-study heterogeneity of 99 %, 99 %, and 92 % respectively.
CONCLUSION: Intra-articular use of PRP or HA after TMJ arthrocentesis may lead to comparable clinical outcomes. The current evidence is low-quality and fraught with high heterogeneity.