Comparative Assessment of Arthrocentesis Methods in TMJ Disorders

April 6, 2026 updated by: Helin Merve Özalp

Clinical Evaluation of Different Arthrocentesis Techniques in the Treatment of Temporomandibular Joint Disorders

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are common conditions in society, characterised by symptoms such as pain, limited movement and joint noises, which negatively affect an individual's quality of life. The primary goal of treatment is to restore the physiological functions of the joint by eliminating the aetiological factors. In cases where conservative methods prove ineffective, arthrocentesis, a minimally invasive approach, comes to the fore. Arthrocentesis aims to reduce pain by removing inflammatory mediators and to increase joint mobility. In this study, the intraoperative parameters and clinical outcomes of different arthrocentesis techniques were compared and evaluated in patients with Wilkes stage 2-3 TME disorders.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Introduction: Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are common symptoms in society, characterized by pain, limited movement, and all sounds, which are often negatively impacted by individual life circumstances. The primary goal of treatment is to eliminate the etiological factors and restore the replaceable functions of the parts. Arthrocentesis, a minimally invasive approach, is emphasized in cases where conservative treatment is beneficial. Arthrocentesis reduces pain by removing inflammatory mediators and increases joint mobility. This effective treatment was evaluated by comparing the intraoperative parameters and clinical success of different arthrocentesis techniques in patients with Wilkes stage 2-3 TMJ disorders.

Materials and Methods: This study is being conducted at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Karadeniz Technical University. Fifty patients (Group 1: n=25, Group 2: n=25) treated with two different arthrocentesis technologies were enrolled retrospectively. The first group was the study of Mun et al. Arthrocentesis was performed using the method employed by Rahal et al., which consisted of two 22-gauge needles bent to form a "Y" shape and placed simultaneously and concentrically. The second group underwent arthrocentesis using a fabricated Y-shaped cannula used by Rahal et al. Each treatment was performed under local anesthesia, and the upper regions were irrigated with an average of 100 ml of Ringer's lactate solution. Following arthrocentesis, 1 ml of hyaluronic acid was injected into the patients. Preoperative and postoperative values were evaluated by comparing the groups at 1 to 6 months. Furthermore, intraoperative arthrocentesis efficiency (number of needle insertions, procedure time, complication rate, and treatment tolerance) was compared between the groups.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

50

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Turkey (Türkiye)
    • Ortahisar
      • Trabzon, Ortahisar, Turkey (Türkiye), 61000
        • Ktu Dentistry

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

Patients with unilateral TME disorders who:

  • Are in stages 2-3 of the Wilkes classification
  • Have not undergone interventional treatment prior to arthroscopy
  • Have undergone conservative treatment prior to arthroscopy without successful results

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with TME irregularities who have undergone interventional treatment (minimally invasive and invasive)
  • Patients with bilateral TME disorders
  • Patients with incomplete recorded data

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Non-Welded Y-Cannula Group
Group 1: The first group underwent arthrocentesis using a method developed by Mun et al., involving two 22-gauge needles bent to form a Y-shape with their angles facing each other.
Procedure: Y-shaped cannula without a source
Y-shaped cannula without a source Arthrocentesis performed by simultaneously and concentrically placing two manually Y-shaped bent needles into the joint cavity.
Active Comparator: Welded Y-Cannula Group
Group 2: The second group underwent arthrocentesis using a method developed by Rahal et al., involving a factory-made Y-shaped cannula.
Procedure: Y-shaped cannula with a source
Y-shaped cannula with a source Arthrocentesis performed by simultaneously and concentrically placing two manually Y-shaped bent needles into the joint cavity.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
TMJ Pain
Time Frame: before the procedure, at 1 month and at 6 months
TMJ Pain intensity was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The VAS ranges from a minimum score of 1 to a maximum score of 10, where 1 indicates the best condition (no pain) and 10 indicates the worst condition (maximum pain). Higher scores on the scale represent greater pain severity. Accordingly, an increase in the score reflects a higher level of perceived pain by the patients.
before the procedure, at 1 month and at 6 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Helin Merve Özalp

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

August 1, 2024

Primary Completion (Actual)

August 15, 2025

Study Completion (Actual)

September 15, 2025

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

December 24, 2025

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

December 24, 2025

First Posted (Actual)

January 8, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

April 9, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 6, 2026

Last Verified

April 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • KTU-DHF-HMO-01

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

IPD Plan Description

It will be shared later if required for the confidentiality of the study.

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD)

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Qatar

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Subscribe