| Title |
For a Patient with Closed Lock and Bruxism, Arthrocentesis Plus a Stabilization Appliance is More Effective Than Arthrocentesis Alone in Increasing Range of Motion |
| Clinical Question |
For a middle-aged patient with a closed lock and bruxism, would arthrocentesis in conjunction with a stabilization appliance compared to arthrocentesis alone, be more effective in reducing TMD pain and dysfunction 1 year after treatment? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
In patients with closed lock and bruxism, arthrocentesis in conjunction with a stabilization appliance is more effective in reducing TMD pain and dysfunction 1 year after treatment in comparison to arthrocentesis treatment alone. |
| Best Evidence |
|
| PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
| 20598897 | Ghanem/2011 | 20 female adults with bruxism | Randomized Controlled Trial | | Key results | There was a significant (P<0.001) increase in the maximal mouth opening, contra-lateral movement, and protrusive movement in long-term follow up for patients who received a stabilization appliance following arthrocentesis. There was a significant decrease (P<0.019) in these measurements in patients who underwent arthrocentesis only. Both pain and dysfunction values significantly decreased (P<0.001) following treatments. | |
| Evidence Search |
Arthrocentesis[All Fields] AND stabilizing[All Fields] AND ("splints"[MeSH Terms] OR "splints"[All Fields]) |
Comments on
The Evidence |
It was assumed this was a randomized controlled trial, that had groups similar at the start, the groups were treated similarly, and had over 80% completion rate. There was adequate follow up and compliance. The study was not double-blind, there were no competing interests reported, and recall bias is unlikely. |
| Applicability |
Patients with bruxism should be treated with arthrocentesis in conjunction with a stabilization appliance because it is the most effective way to reduce TMD pain and dysfunction. |
| Specialty |
(General Dentistry) |
| Keywords |
TMD, closed lock, arthrocentesis, stabilizing appliance
|
| ID# |
2824 |
| Date of submission |
03/22/2015 |
| E-mail |
arandag@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Gabriela Aranda |
| Co-author(s) |
|
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
| Faculty mentor |
Edward F. Wright, DDS, MS |
| Faculty mentor e-mail |
WrightE2@uthscsa.edu |
| |
|
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
| None available | |
 |
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
| None available | |