SynthesisClinical oral investigations2020
Ultrasonography-guided arthrocentesis versus conventional arthrocentesis in treating internal derangement of temporomandibular joint: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does ultrasound guidance during arthrocentesis in women with disc displacement without reduction reduce procedure time and improve outcomes? A randomized clinical trial.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Trial
- Neurological Complications Following Temporomandibular Joint Injections in Patients with Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review of Reported Adverse Events.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Temporomandibular Joint Injections and Lavage: An Overview of Reviews.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Overview of Ultrasound in Dentistry for Advancing Research Methodology and Patient Care Quality with Emphasis on Periodontal/Peri-implant Applications.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2023Review
- Diagnosis and Treatment of Myogenous Temporomandibular Disorders: A Clinical Update.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Lavage Volume of Arthrocentesis in the Management of Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Temporomandibular Disorders: Current Concepts and Controversies in Diagnosis and Management.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review assessed the clinical question: 'Does ultrasonography (USG)-guided arthrocentesis provide better outcomes than conventional arthrocentesis in patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD)?' MATERIALS AND
methodsThe review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. An initial search was performed on electronic databases-including Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane Library-followed by manual and reference searches until the date September 27, 2019. The articles selected were evaluated for study and patient characteristics, arthrocentesis procedure details, and treatment outcomes (post-operative pain, maximum mouth opening (MMO), procedure time, and attempts of needle positioning). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group's data extraction template and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP).
resultsOut of the 325 initially identified articles, four studies with 144 patients were included in the final qualitative analysis. No significant differences were found in pain reduction and improved MMO between sample groups receiving conventional arthrocentesis and USG-guided arthrocentesis. Needle positioning attempts and procedural times were conflicting between the two groups.
conclusionsThis systematic review found that the outcomes of USG-guided arthrocentesis were not superior to conventional arthrocentesis. Conflicting data was found in the attempts of needle positioning and procedural time. Standardized treatment protocols and data from well-designed USG-guided arthrocentesis randomized clinical trials were lacking. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Arthrocentesis with or without USG guidance are both effective for treating patients with TMD to reduce pain and to improve MMO. USG-guided arthrocentesis was not found to be superior to conventional arthrocentesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.