Trial reportJournal of oral & facial pain and headache
Double-Puncture Versus Single-Puncture Arthrocentesis: A Randomized Controlled Trial with 3 Years of Follow-Up.
Trial report in Journal of oral & facial pain and headache. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Arthrocentesis of Temporomandibular Joints-A Clinical Comparative Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Analysis of the Use of Sample Size and Effect Size Calculations in a Temporomandibular Disorders Randomised Controlled Trial-Short Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo compare the clinical effectiveness of conventional double-puncture vs single-puncture type 2 arthrocentesis for management of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disc displacement without reduction (DDWOR) after 3 years of follow-up.
methodsA total of 26 patients with DDWOR were randomly and blindly allocated into two treatment groups (n = 13 each): group 1 = conventional double-puncture arthrocentesis; group 2 = single-puncture type 2 arthrocentesis. Data on gender, side of painful joint complaint, age (years), duration of joint pain (months), maximum interincisal distance (MID, mm), and pain intensity (self-reported with a 0-10 visual analog scale [VAS]) were collected. VAS scores and MID were measured before (baseline) and 3 years after (final) the arthrocentesis.
resultsTwenty-three patients completed the study (group 1, n = 11; group 2, n = 12). Both techniques resulted in significantly reduced VAS scores and increased MID (P = .001) after the 3 years of follow-up; however, there were no statistically significant differences between techniques (P > 0.05).
conclusionThe two arthrocentesis methods tested were both effective in reducing VAS scores and increasing MID in patients with DDWOR.
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.