evidencegaps
Primary study · included by 1 review

Clinical comparison between arthrocentesis and conventional conservative treatment with maxillomandibular fixation for unilateral high condylar fractures.

Nogami 2014 · Nogami S, Yamauchi K, Kataoka Y, et al. · Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2014

Included by

Effectiveness of arthrocentesis versus other therapeutic modalities in patients with temporomandibular disorders. Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Nogami 2014 · Table 1; Figures 4-8; reference 36
Outcome this study informsPooled effectEvidenceCertainty
Pain intensity (VAS)
Temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis, alone or with adjunctive intra-articular agents vs Other treatments: conservative therapy (splints, physiotherapy, drugs), intra-articular injections, arthroscopy, or alternative arthrocentesis protocols
Meta-regression coefficient (beta) -1.609 [-5.033, 1.816]NRGRADE not reported
Pain intensity (VAS)
TMJ arthrocentesis, alone or with adjunctive intra-articular agents vs Other therapeutic modalities (conservative therapy, intra-articular injections, arthroscopy, alternative arthrocentesis protocols) · Follow-up from 1 month to 5 years across trials (mean 53 weeks)
MD -0.25 [-1.09, 0.59]26 studies · 947 participantsVery low
Pain intensity (VAS)
Temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis, alone or with adjunctive intra-articular agents vs Other treatments: conservative therapy (splints, physiotherapy, drugs), intra-articular injections, arthroscopy, or alternative arthrocentesis protocols
Meta-regression coefficient (beta) -0.028 [-0.125, 0.069]NRGRADE not reported

1 including review in total.