Cranio : the journal of craniomandibular practice · 2020
Comparison of two needles arthrocentesis versus double needle cannula arthrocentesis in the treatment of temporomandibular disc displacement.
СтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Grossmann Eduardo, Ferreira Luciano Ambrosio, Poluha Rodrigo Lorenzi, Setogutti Enio, Iwaki Lilian Cristina Vessoni, Iwaki Filho Liogi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and imaging results of two needles arthrocentesis (TNA) versus double-needle cannula arthrocentesis (DNCA) in the treatment of temporomandibular joint disc displacement (DD).
METHODS: Twenty patients with DD were randomly divided into two groups: TNA and DNCA. Clinical data (pain scores; maximal interincisal distance [MID], and protrusion and laterality movements) were evaluated before and 24 months after the arthrocentesis. Disc and condyle position and joint effusion (JE) were evaluated by magnetic resonance exams.
RESULTS: Both groups presented improvement in the MID, including pain reduction, modifications in disc and condyle positions, and reduction of the presence of JE, without difference between groups (p > 0.05). The DNCA was performed significantly faster (p = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Both TNA and DNCA are efficient in promoting improvement in the MID: reduction in pain, modifications in disc and condyle positions, and, in part, may account for less JE, without difference between techniques.
METHODS: Twenty patients with DD were randomly divided into two groups: TNA and DNCA. Clinical data (pain scores; maximal interincisal distance [MID], and protrusion and laterality movements) were evaluated before and 24 months after the arthrocentesis. Disc and condyle position and joint effusion (JE) were evaluated by magnetic resonance exams.
RESULTS: Both groups presented improvement in the MID, including pain reduction, modifications in disc and condyle positions, and reduction of the presence of JE, without difference between groups (p > 0.05). The DNCA was performed significantly faster (p = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Both TNA and DNCA are efficient in promoting improvement in the MID: reduction in pain, modifications in disc and condyle positions, and, in part, may account for less JE, without difference between techniques.