Journal of Clinical Medicine· 2026Q2· Review
Hyaluronic Acid Molecular Weight in the Minimally Invasive Management of Temporomandibular Disorders: A Scoping Review
- 0citations
- Q2SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
A scoping review of 5 reports found no statistically significant differences in efficacy between different hyaluronic acid (HA) molecular weights for temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), but noted significant limitations in study design and reporting.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Five reports were included in the review, comparing different intra-articular HA preparations for TMDs.
- No statistically significant differences in efficacy were found between HA molecular weight categories in the included studies.
- One study reported safety concerns with a high-molecular-weight HA formulation, leading to discontinuation.
- Significant heterogeneity in study protocols, formulation reporting, and outcome measures was identified.
- Limitations include small sample sizes and allocation concealment issues, restricting interpretation.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Background/Objectives: This scoping review mapped how hyaluronic acid (HA) molecular weight has been defined and investigated in direct clinical comparisons for temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), including formulations, populations, procedures, outcomes, and methodological limitations. Methods: Final searches and selection were completed on 9 September 2026 using PubMed, BASE, CENTRAL, and Europe PMC. Prospective human studies comparing different intra-articular HA preparations under the same procedural protocol were eligible, including matched comparisons within multi-arm studies. Two reviewers independently screened and charted the evidence. Findings were synthesized descriptively without meta-analysis or formal risk-of-bias assessment. The protocol was registered in OSF (osf.io/sc8wv). Results: Five reports were included: three quasi-randomized trials and two prospective studies with sequential or unreported allocation between HA formulations. Four reported efficacy comparisons; one contributed safety data only after swelling and marked pain in 2 of 5 recipients prompted discontinuation of a high-molecular-weight arm. Molecular-weight categories overlapped across reports, formulation characteristics were incompletely reported, and protocols varied from one to five injections with differing use of arthrocentesis. Comparative follow-up ranged from 3 to 12 months. No eligible efficacy comparison detected a statistically significant difference, but small samples, allocation limitations, and incomplete subgroup reporting restricted interpretation. Conclusions: The evidence map identifies inconsistent formulation classification, procedural heterogeneity, and deficiencies in outcome and safety reporting as barriers to interpretation. It does not establish equivalence, superiority, or comparative safety of molecular-weight categories and provides specific priorities for future studies.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Complementary and Manual Therapy
Complementary and Manual TherapyHealth Professions