title: Arthroscopy for treating temporomandibular joint disorders.
abstract: METHODS
  The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline Embase, Lilacs, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and CINAHL databases were searched. In addition the reference lists of the included articles were checked and 14 journals hand searched.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) of arthroscopy for treating TMDs were included. There were no restrictions regarding the language or date of publication.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two review authors independently extracted data, and three review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included trials. The authors of the selected articles were contacted for additional information. Pooling of trials was only attempted if at least two trials of comparable protocols, with the same conditions and similar outcome measurements were available. Statistical analysis was performed in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Seven RCTs (n = 349) met the inclusion criteria. All the studies were either at high or unclear risk of bias. Pain was evaluated after six months in two studies. No statistically significant differences were found between the arthroscopy versus nonsurgical groups (standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.004; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.46 to 0.55, P = 0.81). Two studies analysed pain 12 months after surgery (arthroscopy and arthrocentesis) in 81 patients. No statistically significant differences were found (mean difference (MD) = 0.10; 95% CI -1.46 to 1.66, P = 0.90). Three studies analysed the same outcome in patients who had been submitted to arthroscopic surgery or to open surgery and a statistically significant difference was found after 12 months (SMD = 0.45; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.89, P = 0.05) in favour of open surgery.The two studies compared the maximum interincisal opening in six different clinical outcomes (interincisal opening over 35 mm; maximum protrusion over 5 mm; click; crepitation; tenderness on palpation in the TMJ and the jaw muscles 12 months after arthroscopy and open surgery). The outcome measures did not present statistically significant differences (odds ratio (OR) = 1.00; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.21, P = 1.00). Two studies compared the maximum interincisal opening after 12 months of postsurgical follow-up. A statistically significant difference in favour of the arthroscopy group was observed (MD = 5.28; 95% CI 3.46 to 7.10, P < 0.0001).The two studies compared the mandibular function after 12 months of follow-up with 40 patients evaluated. The outcome measure was mandibular functionality (MFIQ). This difference was not statistically significant (MD = 1.58; 95% CI -0.78 to 3.94, P = 0.19).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Both arthroscopy and nonsurgical treatments reduced pain after six months. When compared with arthroscopy, open surgery was more effective at reducing pain after 12 months. Nevertheless, there were no differences in mandibular functionality or in other outcomes in clinical evaluations. Arthroscopy led to greater improvement in maximum interincisal opening after 12 months than arthrocentesis; however, there was no difference in pain.
authors: NHS Ayrshire and Arran, UK.
authors: Roger
authors: R
authors: Currie