Research Output Details
Morphine Versus Nalbuphine as Intra-Articular Medications Following Temporomandibular Joint Arthrocentesis: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Published
469
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed at comparing the therapeutic effect
of nalbuphine in comparison to morphine after Temporomandibular
joint (TMJ) arthrocentesis in patients with anterior
disc displacement without reduction (ADDwoR).
Materials and Methods: Twenty-four female patients diagnosed
with ADDwoR. Patients were treated with TMJ arthrocentesis
then randomly divided into parallel groups. Group (A) received
an intra-articular injection of 2 mL 10 mg morphine and group
(B) received an intraarticular injection of 2 mL 10 mg nalbuphine.
Each patient was assessed in terms of maximum mouth
opening (MMO), lateral excursions and pain according to visual
analogue scale (VAS). Follow-up was made at the intervals of 1
week 1 month, 3 months and 6 months.
Results: A vast improvement was attained in both groups in all
assessment variables with a significant value at the end of the
follow-up period in comparison to the preoperative assessment
values. Yet there was an insignificant difference between both
groups regarding the assessment criteria. However insignificant
yet the scales tip slightly towards nalbuphine group.
Conclusion: Nalbuphine is a highly potent and effective analgesic
to be administered post TMJ arthrocentesis in patients
with closed lock and highly comparable to that of morphine.
of nalbuphine in comparison to morphine after Temporomandibular
joint (TMJ) arthrocentesis in patients with anterior
disc displacement without reduction (ADDwoR).
Materials and Methods: Twenty-four female patients diagnosed
with ADDwoR. Patients were treated with TMJ arthrocentesis
then randomly divided into parallel groups. Group (A) received
an intra-articular injection of 2 mL 10 mg morphine and group
(B) received an intraarticular injection of 2 mL 10 mg nalbuphine.
Each patient was assessed in terms of maximum mouth
opening (MMO), lateral excursions and pain according to visual
analogue scale (VAS). Follow-up was made at the intervals of 1
week 1 month, 3 months and 6 months.
Results: A vast improvement was attained in both groups in all
assessment variables with a significant value at the end of the
follow-up period in comparison to the preoperative assessment
values. Yet there was an insignificant difference between both
groups regarding the assessment criteria. However insignificant
yet the scales tip slightly towards nalbuphine group.
Conclusion: Nalbuphine is a highly potent and effective analgesic
to be administered post TMJ arthrocentesis in patients
with closed lock and highly comparable to that of morphine.