Back

Nalbuphine vs. morphine for TMJ arthrocentesis: A comparative study

Summaries 1 min 250

Font Size

Created On: 22/04/2025

This randomized clinical trial compared nalbuphine versus morphine for temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthrocentesis.

See All

Key take away

Intra-articular injections of nalbuphine and morphine show comparable efficacy in pain relief and functional improvement after temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis, with a slight advantage for nalbuphine.

Background

This randomized clinical trial compared nalbuphine versus morphine for temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthrocentesis.

Method

A total of 24 females diagnosed with anterior disc displacement without reduction who underwent TMJ arthrocentesis were included. Volunteers were randomly divided into:

Group A: Treated with an intra-articular injection of 10 mg (2 mL) morphine
Group B: Treated with an intra-articular injection of 10 mg (2 mL) nalbuphine

Patients were assessed based on maximum mouth opening, lateral excursions, and pain intensity via the visual analogue scale (VAS). After the intervention, the follow-ups were executed at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months.

Result

Across all assessment parameters, both groups illustrated remarkable improvements by the end of the follow-up period when compared to the baseline. But, no statistically significant inter-group difference was witnessed. While the difference remained negligible, the nalbuphine group exhibited a slight advantage in terms of outcomes.

Conclusion

Nalbuphine proved to be a potent and effective analgesic for post-TMJ arthrocentesis pain management in patients with closed lock, exhibiting a therapeutic efficacy comparable to that of morphine.