PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 11, 2026CRANIO®0 citations

Comparison of different arthrocentesis techniques for the management of symptoms in patients with degenerative joint disorders: A randomized clinical trial

View Full Paper
MKMosaad Khalifah

Key Points

  • This research aims to assess the effectiveness of a novel arthrocentesis technique against conventional methods for managing temporomandibular joint disorders.
  • Randomized trial with 144 temporomandibular joints (TMJs) assigned to two groups based on disorder type.
  • Each group further divided into three subgroups using different arthrocentesis techniques: Nitzan et al., Alkan and Etöz, and a novel approach.
  • Outcomes measured included success rates, procedure duration, relocations, and pain levels.
  • The novel technique demonstrated a significantly higher success rate compared to conventional techniques.
  • Group 3 had fewer procedure relocations and a shorter procedure duration than groups 1 and 2.
  • Early pain reduction and improved maximum mouth opening were more pronounced in group 3.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: All arthrocentesis techniques relied on fixed points measured from the cantho-tragal line. However, joint anatomy differs substantially in the different temporomandibular joint disorders (TMD). This study introduces a novel technique, uses patient-specific points without reference to cantho-tragal line, and compares it with two conventional techniques. METHODS: A total of 144 TMJs were divided into group A (disc displacement without reduction with limitation) and group B (degenerative joint disease). Each group was subdivided into 3 groups according to the technique applied. Nitzan et al. technique (10/2, 20/10 points) in group 1; Alkan and Etöz technique (10/2, 7/2 points) in group 2; and the novel technique (two points in glenoid fossa summit) in group 3. RESULTS: Group 3 showed better results than groups 1 and 2 in success rate, relocations number, procedure duration, and early pain and maximum mouth opening. CONCLUSION: The novel technique may be more promising in TMD.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Mosaad Khalifah (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0171ed3a9f334c2827201dhttps://doi.org/10.1080/08869634.2026.2669204
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Temporomandibular disorders: INfORM/IADR key points for good clinical practice based on standard of care2024 · 194 citations
  2. 2Intraoperative comparison of single- and double-puncture techniques in temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis2018 · 26 citations
  3. 3Two-needle vs. single-needle technique for TMJ arthrocentesis plus hyaluronic acid injections: a comparative trial over a six-month follow up2011 · 78 citations
  4. 4Long-term effectiveness of arthrocentesis with and without hyaluronic acid injection for treatment of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis2019 · 67 citations
  5. 5Arthrocentesis with or without additional drugs in temporomandibular joint inflammatory‐degenerative disease: comparison of six treatment protocols*2011 · 133 citations