MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1080/08869634.2017.1279825

Медицинская библиотека · Cranio : the journal of craniomandibular practice · 2017

Comparison of the efficiency of irrigation of single and double-needle techniques of temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis: A cadaver study.

Sindel Alper, Uzuner Fatih, Sindel Muzaffer, Tozoğlu Sinan

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of the double- and single-needle arthrocentesis techniques in removing methylene blue from the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) space.

METHODS

This study was performed in 20 TMJs from 10 fresh cadavers. A total of 1 ml of 10 μM methylene blue solution was injected into the upper joint spaces, just prior to irrigation. Ten arthrocentesis procedures were carried out using the double-needle technique, and the remaining 10 were completed using the single-needle technique. The photo-absorbance values of methylene blue solution injected into and removed from the joint space were measured at a 665 nm wavelength. Statistical analysis was performed using Shapiro-Wilks test and t-test.

RESULTS

The t-test analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the two methods in the removal of methylene blue.

CONCLUSION

According to the results of the present study, the single-needle technique may be a good alternative with the advantages of easier application in cases where it is not possible to perform the double-needle technique.

Для цитирования: Sindel Alper, Uzuner Fatih, Sindel Muzaffer, Tozoğlu Sinan. Comparison of the efficiency of irrigation of single and double-needle techniques of temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis: A cadaver study.. Cranio : the journal of craniomandibular practice. 2017. DOI: 10.1080/08869634.2017.1279825.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.