ABSTRACT
Intra-articular platelet rich plasma injections [PRP] or platelet rich growth factors [PRGF] injections have been used as therapeutic treatment options for patients with temporomandibular joint disorder [TMD] in recent years. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the level of the available scientific evidence in the current literature on the benefits of applying PRP or PRGF injections to patients with TMD simultaneously or after arthrocentesis or arthroscopy to reduce post-operative pain and improve temporomandibular joint function. This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA criteria and an electronic database search was carried out in the PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases during May 2021. The patients in the study group were injected with intra-articular PRP or PRGF simultaneously or after arthrocentesis or arthroscopy while the patients in the control group had arthrocentesis or arthroscopy without an intra-articular injection or received an injection of hyaluronic acid or Ringer's lactate solution. Eight randomised controlled clinical trials were selected. The PRP and PRGF intra-articular injections demonstrated significant differences in terms of pain reduction in three studies and improved mandibular function in two. The treatment with PRP or PRGF intra-articular injections demonstrated slightly better clinical results but of little significance in comparison with the control group. Evidence of their effectiveness is crucial to establish them as non-invasive treatments and as an affordable option for treating some types of TMDs. In accordance with Evidence-based dentistry principles, this review has been assigned a C recommendation.
Subject(s)
Platelet-Rich Plasma , Temporomandibular Joint Disorders , Arthroscopy , Humans , Hyaluronic Acid/therapeutic use , Injections, Intra-Articular , Ringer's Lactate/therapeutic use , Temporomandibular Joint Disorders/therapyABSTRACT
Objective: To evaluate the benefits of hyaluronic acid intraarticular injection (HA IAI), in conjunction with minimally invasive surgery (arthrocentesis or arthroscopy), as a therapeutic option for temporomandibular joint disorders.Methods: An electronic search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases was conducted in order to answer the following PICOS question: "In clinical trials with patients treated with arthroscopy or arthrocentesis, did the subsequent use of HA IAI provide a better control of postoperative pain and temporomandibular joint function compared to those patients who did not receive it?"Results: Following PRISMA criteria, six randomized controlled clinical trials were selected. HA IAI showed significant differences in terms of pain reduction in three of them and improvement of mandibular function in two, compared to the control group.Conclusion: Based on scientific evidence, the level of recommendation found regarding this type of intervention is type B (recommendation based on inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence).
ABSTRACT
Background: Oral bone regeneration techniques (OBRT) attempt to provide the appropriate bone volume and density to correctly accomplish dental implant treatments. The objective was to determine whether differences exist in the clinical outcomes of these techniques between diabetic and non-diabetic patients, considering the level of scientific evidence. Material and Methods: A systematic review following PRISMA statements was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases with the search terms: "Diabetes Mellitus", "guided bone regeneration", "bone regenera-tion", "alveolar ridge augmentation", "ridge augmentation", bone graft*, "sinus floor augmentation", "sinus floor elevation", "sinus lift", implant*. Articles were limited to those published less than 10 years ago and in English. Inclusion criteria were: human studies of all bone regeneration techniques, including at least 10 patients and the using OBRT in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Non-human studies were excluded. They were stratified according to their level of scientific evidence related to SORT criteria (Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy). Results: The initial search provided 131 articles, after reading the abstracts a total of 33 relevant articles were selected to read the full text and analyzed to decide eligibility. Finally, seven of them accomplished the inclusion criteria: two controlled clinical trials, one cohort study and four case series. Conclusions: A low grade of evidence regarding the use of OBRT in diabetic patients was found. The recommendation for this intervention in diabetic patients is considered type C due to the high heterogeneity of the type of diabetic patients included and the variability of the techniques applied
No disponible
