Comparison of omnipaque with hypaque in temporomandibular arthrography

Decreasing or alleviating pain experienced by some patients during or after temporomandibular arthrography would make this relatively inexpensive and highly accurate technique more attractive. This is particularly true for those patients without access to MR or those whose referring physicians prefer arthrography to other techniques for diagnosing internal derangements. Ionic and nonionic contrast agents were compared in a randomized, double-blind trial to determine if pain could be decreased by using a nonionic contrast material. Forty patients received either Omnipaque 300 (nonionic, iohexol) or Hypaque 60 (ionic, diatrizoate meglumine). Radiographs were assessed for diagnostic quality, and patients were asked to note their level of discomfort. No significant differences between the agents were detected. Maximal discomfort was noted at 24 hr. Discomfort was classified as none, mild, or moderate, with no patients describing marked discomfort. This study does not support the use of nonionic contrast agents over the less expensive ionic agents for decreasing pain or improving film quality in temporomandibular joint arthrography.