Does glucosamine, chondroitin sulfate, and methylsulfonylmethane supplementation improve the outcome of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis management with arthrocentesis plus intraarticular hyaluronic acid injection. A randomized clinical trial

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes obtained with the use of glucosamine, chondroitin sulfate, and methylsulfonylmethane (GCM) supplementation after arthrocentesis plus intraarticular hyaluronic acid (HA) injection. A randomized clinical trial was implemented with adult participants with TMJ-OA who were referred to the author's clinic between February 2014 and May 2015. The sample was entirely composed of patients with TMJ-OA who were treated randomly with a one-session arthrocentesis plus intraarticular HA injection only (control group), or an initial one-session arthrocentesis plus intraarticular HA injection followed by 3 months of GCM supplementation (study group). The predictor variable was management (treatment) technique. The outcome variables were visual analog scale evaluations (masticatory efficiency, pain complaint, joint sound) and mandibular mobility (maximal interincisal opening [MIO], and lateral and protrusive motions of the mandible). The outcome variables were recorded preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively. Thirty-one participants were enrolled in the study. Five were lost during follow-up. The final study sample consisted of 26 participants (age 28.35 +/- 10.85 y): 14 in the control group (age 28.71 +/- 10.94 y); and 12 in the study group (age 27.92 +/- 11.20 y). Pain complaints (p < 0.001) and joint sounds (p = 0.030 for the control group; p = 0.023 for the study group) showed statistically significant decreases. Masticatory efficiency (p < 0.001 for the control group; p = 0.040 for the study group) and lateral mandibular motion (p = 0.040 for the control group; p = 0.004 for study group) showed statistically significant increases in both groups, whereas MIO and protrusive mandibular motion showed no significant changes in either group (p > 0.05). After estimating the differences between the follow-up and baseline outcomes, the mean changes in the primary outcome variables (VAS scores, MIO, and mandibular motion) showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups (p > 0.05). Progressions (reparative remodeling) of hard-tissue TMJ structures were observed on CBCT scans of some participants in both groups. These findings suggested that the use of GCM supplementation after arthrocentesis plus intraarticular HA injection produced no additional clinical benefits or improvements for patients with TMJ-OA compared with arthrocentesis plus intraarticular HA injection alone. (C) 2021 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo- Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.