ABSTRACT
Background: Temporomandibular joint disc displacement disorders are a group of temporomandibular disorders beside from other inflammatory disorders and growth related disorders of joint. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of arthrocentesis procedure in comparison with stabilization splints used for disc displacement disorders without reduction. Materials and Methods: A systematic search was done in electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central, Web of Science). In addition to this hand search of references and grey literatures was done. Qualities of randomized controlled clinical trials were assessed by Cochrane's tool for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was followed to assess the prospective and retrospective studies. Outcome variables pain (VAS) and maximum mouth opening were assessed by the software review manager 5.03. Results: A total of five studies were included in the review. Three studies showed greater improvement of symptoms in patients of arthrocentesis group in terms of maximum mouth opening, pain (VAS) value. Two other studies found no significant advantage of arthrocentesis over the other treatment protocol. The meta-analysis resulted in statistically significant difference between outcome variables favouring arthrocentesis group (VAS 1-10) (Mean Difference: 3.10; 95% CI 1.74, 4.45; P ≤ .00001, Mean difference: 2.00; 95% CI 0.29, 3.71; P = 0.02). Conclusion: Arthrocentesis showed effective result in terms of increase in mouth opening and reduction of pain level compared to stabilization splint and other non-invasive approaches in patients with disc displacement disorders without reduction. Overall, results supported the rationale of using arthrocentesis in patients with disc displacement disorders without reduction.
ABSTRACT
AIM: Peri implant diseases lead to pathological changes in the peri implant tissues and loss of osseointegration. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the effect of various lasers and photodynamic therapy (PDT) on peri implant diseases compared to conventional procedures. SETTING AND DESIGN: This meta analysis was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of the electronic databases such as PubMed, ICTRP, CT.gov, Embase, and Cochrane Library was done additional to manual search of peer review article on peri-implant diseases. Eleven randomized control clinical trials were included in which laser therapy and PDT were used as an interventional procedure. RESULTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Review Manager 5.03 (RevMan, Nordic Cochrane Center, Copenhagen, Denmark), and random effects model were used to assess mean difference (MD). Bivariate differential mean statistic was used in intergroup estimate with 95% confidence interval (CI). I2 test statistics was applied for heterogenity and P < 0.05 was considered significant statistically. The literature search yielded a total of 113 articles among which 11 articles were included for quantitative analysis. The selected outcome PD reported MD -0.01 with 95% CI (-0.13, 0.16), P = 0.84, and CAL reported MD -0.09 with 95% CI (-0.32, 0.14), P = 0.45, respectively. CONCLUSION: Laser treatment as an adjunctive therapy or monotherapy in peri implantitis does not show any superior effects than conventional measures as per evidence. However, cases with peri implant mucositis have shown far more promising results with laser therapy compared to peri implantitis.
