AimIs to clinically evaluate the efficacy of intra-articular (PRP) injections incombination with arthrocentesis compared to (i-PRF) injections in combinationwith arthrocentesis in management of patients with (TMJ OA).Materials & methods:45 eligible patients with (TMJ-OA) were selected from the outpatient clinic ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, October University for modernsciences and arts, Cairo, Egypt.Patients were randomly assigned one of the three groups: Group I: patientstreated with arthrocentesis (control group) Group II: patients treated witharthrocentesis and intra-articular (PRP) injection Group III: patients treatedwith arthrocentesis and intra-articular (i-PRF) injectionThe three groups were compared to each other regarding maximum mouthopening (MMO) & pain improvement using visual analogue scale (VAS)Results:Comparing the three groups, the VAS scores variation between them wasstatistically non-significant (p > 0.05) preoperatively, while at 1 month, 3 monthand 6 month postoperatively there was significant decrease (P ≤ 0.05) at VASscores with best results for group III followed by group II in comparison withgroup I.Comparing the MMO results between the three groups showed statisticallynon-significant (p > 0.05) preoperatively, while at 1 month, 3 month and 6month postoperatively there was a significant increase (P ≤ 0.05) at the MMOscores with best results for group III followed by group II in comparison withgroup I.ConclusionIntraarticular injection of i-PRF following arthrocentesis is a successfultreatment with better comparable reported results than intraarticular injection ofPRP following arthrocentesis in management of TMJ OA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sultan et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: