The outcome of arthroscopic treatment of temporomandibular joint arthoropathy

The document attached has been archived with permission from the Australian Dental Association. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.Ninety patients underwent arthroscopic temporomandibular joint surgery to 124 joints for arthropathy which had failed to respond to at least six months of non-surgical treatment. They were surveyed at between 6 months and 5 years (mean 2.5 years) after surgery and 63 per cent responded to the survey. They reported an 82 per cent improvement for pain (50 to 100 per cent better), 80 per cent for clicking and 82 per cent for locking. There was no morbidity following the treatment. Arthroscopic surgery sould be considered for advanced temporomandibular joint arthropathy which is refractory to non-surgical treatment.I. Rosenburg and A. N. Gos

The methodological quality of systematic reviews comparing temporomandibular joint disorder surgical and non-surgical treatment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Temporomandibular joint disorders (TMJD) are multifactor, complex clinical problems affecting approximately 60–70% of the general population, with considerable controversy about the most effective treatment. For example, reports claim success rates of 70% and 83% for non-surgical and surgical treatment, whereas other reports claim success rates of 40% to 70% for self-improvement without treatment. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to (1) identify systematic reviews comparing temporomandibular joint disorder surgical and non-surgical treatment, (2) evaluate their methodological quality, and (3) evaluate the evidence grade within the systematic reviews.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A search strategy was developed and implemented for MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and Brazilian Dentistry Bibliography databases. Inclusion criteria were: systematic reviews (± meta-analysis) comparing surgical and non-surgical TMJD treatment, published in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, or German between the years 1966 and 2007(up to July). Exclusion criteria were: <it>in vitro </it>or animal studies; narrative reviews or editorials or editorial letters; and articles published in other languages. Two investigators independently selected and evaluated systematic reviews. Three different instruments (AMSTAR, OQAQ and CASP) were used to evaluate methodological quality, and the results averaged. The GRADE instrument was used to evaluate the evidence grade within the reviews.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The search strategy identified 211 reports; of which 2 were systematic reviews meeting inclusion criteria. The first review met 23.5 ± 6.0% and the second met 77.5 ± 12.8% of the methodological quality criteria (mean ± sd). In these systematic reviews between 9 and 15% of the trials were graded as high quality, and 2 and 8% of the total number of patients were involved in these studies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results indicate that in spite of the widespread impact of TMJD, and the multitude of potential interventions, clinicians have expended sparse attention to systematically implementing clinical trial methodology that would improve validity and reliability of outcome measures. With some 20 years of knowledge of evidence-based healthcare, the meager attention to these issues begins to raise ethical issues about TMJD trial conduct and clinical care.</p

Meniscopexy for Internal Derangement of Temporomandibular Joint

The term internal derangement was first adopted to describe any pathologic entity that interfered with the smooth function of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). The term is currently used exclusively to describe alterations in disc–fossa relations. Internal derangement of the TMJ does not always cause pain, although when the disc becomes displaced, noises and locking can occur and ligamentous, capsular or retrodiscal pain may dominate the clinical picture. Meniscopexy of TMJ was done in ten patients where clinical features suggest true internal derangement of the TMJ refractory to conservative treatment with restricted movement and pain identified as arising primarily from the joint. Magnetic resonance imaging was done to identify the cause of problem