Evidence Hub

Is the combine prolotherapy more effective than the traditional prolotherapy in patients with temporomandibular joint hypermobility?

Ates H, Sivrikaya EC

Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery, 2025

26 participants

Abstract

Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) hypermobility is commonly associated with symptoms such as joint pain, restricted jaw function, and clicking sounds. While prolotherapy is recognized as a conservative treatment method for TMJ disorders, arthrocentesis is frequently employed to manage intra-articular inflammation. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of combining prolotherapy with arthrocentesis compared to prolotherapy alone in patients with TMJ hypermobility. A total of 26 patients (mean age: 33.7 years) were retrospectively analyzed and divided into two treatment groups: combined prolotherapy with arthrocentesis (n = 15) and traditional prolotherapy (n = 11). Clinical outcomes, including maximal interincisal opening (MIO), pain intensity assessed via the visual analog scale (VAS), and the presence of joint clicking, were measured before treatment and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months post-treatment. Both groups demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in MIO at the 3-month follow-up (p < 0.05). However, a more substantial decrease in VAS pain scores was observed in the combined therapy group (from 6.0 to 1.5, p = 0.001) compared to the traditional group (from 6.5 to 4.5, p = 0.015). Although clicking sounds decreased in both groups, the differences were not statistically significant. Transient complications, such as dizziness and temporary facial nerve paresis, were reported in a few cases and resolved spontaneously without further intervention.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 26 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free