Comparison of the effect of PRP and Prolotherapy on symptom control in patients with temporomandibular joint disorders

Comparison of the effect of PRP and Prolotherapy on the control of symptoms in patients with temporomandibular joint disorders

Not blinded randomized clinical trial with two intervention groups and 20 patients in each group. Random sequencing is done by simple random allocation method using random number table.

The study is performed in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd. In one group, the patients' own blood was taken and after centrifugation, the obtained PRP was mixed with 2% lidocaine and 3 cc of this solution was injected in 3 different places in each painful joint. In the other group, 50% dextrose serum is mixed with 2% lidocaine and normal saline to obtain 12.5% ​​dextrose. In each painful joint, 3 cc of this solution is injected in 3 different places. The injections will be done in 2 stages on days 0 and 14 and the follow-up of patients will be done on days 0, 14, 30, 60, 90.

Patients with unilateral or bilateral temporomandibular joint disorders are included in the study. All of these patients have a history of at least 3 months of joint pain, or decreased mouth opening or joint clicking sound, and have undergone conservative treatment such as medication, occlusal splints, and physiotherapy but have not recovered. patients who do not cooperate for follow-up, have an hypersensitivity reaction or have problems during the injection such as excessive bleeding and swelling are excluded from the study.

In one group, PRP is injected into the temporomandibular joint from patients' own blood. In the other group, 12.5% serum dextrose is injected into the temporomandibular joint.

Pain, rate of mouth opening and joint clicking on days 0, 14, 30, 60, 90

First, using Random allocation software version 1.0 under Windows, we generate a random sequence by simple random allocation method. In this table, we specify from one to 40 and each number is assigned to an intervention group (A or B). . The first qualified person is assigned number 1, the second person is assigned number 2 and so on up to 40 patient. In order to blind the random allocation of clients by a third person who is unaware of the interventions, they are placed in intervention groups (A or B) by this table.When the eligible patient presents, based on the patient's number, the intervention group is asked by telephone by a third person