الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 205 |  |  |
| | | from | 205 | | |
Abstract
Minimally invasive techniques have been widely used by many authors for treatment of TMJ ID. However, both arthroscopy and arthrocentesis revealed high success rate, a very few randomized blinded study were published to evaluate and compare both techniques. Moreover, most studies had utilized various methods of assessment with dissimilar measurement procedures instead of utilizing a standard assessment method.
The current study was conducted to evaluate the efficiency of arthrocentesis versus arthroscopic lysis and lavage for treatment of TMJ ID. The study was designed to be a prospective randomized double blinded trial. Patient’s examination and evaluation were performed by utilizing the RDCrrMD in order to standardize the diagnostic criteria and the method of assessment. Twenty patients were enrolled in our study, randomized in to equal group. Group I were treated by arthrocentesis (6 females and 4 males) and group two were treated by arthroscopy (9 females and one male). The follow-up period was assigned to be 66months.
The results of our study revealed statistically significant increase in alleviation of pain and joint sounds in arthroscopy group. On the other hand, our results showed non-significant difference between both groups in improving mandibular movements and alleviation of joint sounds.
Our results recommend utilization of arthrocentesis for patients suffering acute moderate pain and limited mandibular function resulted from TMJ ID, while arthroscopy is recommended for patients suffering severe pain aroused from TMJ ID. Arthroscopy is also recommended for
\
patients who have been treated by arthrocentesis and still suffering pain.