↓ Skip to main content

Arthroscopy for temporomandibular disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Arthroscopy for temporomandibular disorders
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006385.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcelo Rigon, Ligia M Pereira, Marcelo C Bortoluzzi, Alessandro D Loguercio, Adilson Luiz Ramos, Jefferson R Cardoso

Abstract

Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are considered a collection of disorders involving many organic, psychological and psychosocial factors. They can involve the masticatory muscles or the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and associated structures, or both. It is estimated that 40% to 75% of the population displays at least one sign of the disease and 33% of the population reports at least one symptom. Arthroscopy has been used to reduce signs and symptoms of patients with TMD but the effectiveness has still not been totally explained. To assess the effectiveness of arthroscopy for the management of signs and symptoms in patients with TMDs. The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 23 December 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2010), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 23 December 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 23 December 2010), LILACS via BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 23 December 2010), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) via OVID (1985 to 23 December 2010), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 23 December 2010). There were no restrictions regarding the language or date of publication. Randomized controlled clinical trials of arthroscopy for treating TMDs were included. 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. Seven randomized controlled trials (n = 349) met the inclusion criteria. All studies were either at high or unclear risk of bias. The outcome pain was evaluated after 6 months in two studies. No statistically significant differences were found between the arthroscopy versus nonsurgical groups (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.004; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.46 to 0.55, P = 0.81). Two studies, analyzed 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 analyzed 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 favor 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 favor 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).   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Both arthroscopy and nonsurgical treatments reduced pain after 6 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Taiwan 1 1%
Uruguay 1 1%
Unknown 64 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 25%
Unspecified 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Professor 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 21 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 71%
Unspecified 11 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Psychology 2 3%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Other 2 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2015.
All research outputs
#9,618,929
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,634
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,740
of 347,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#185
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 347,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.