Advertisement

Prospective comparison study of one-year outcomes for all titanium total temporomandibular joint replacements in patients allergic to metal and cobalt–chromium replacement joints in patients not allergic to metal

  • O.T. Hussain
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 0115 924 9924.
    Affiliations
    Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, England, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Derby Road, Nottingham NG7 2UH, United Kingdom
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    1 Tel.: +44 0115 924 9924.
    S. Sah
    Footnotes
    1 Tel.: +44 0115 924 9924.
    Affiliations
    Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, England, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Derby Road, Nottingham NG7 2UH, United Kingdom
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    1 Tel.: +44 0115 924 9924.
    A.J. Sidebottom
    Footnotes
    1 Tel.: +44 0115 924 9924.
    Affiliations
    Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, England, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Derby Road, Nottingham NG7 2UH, United Kingdom
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    1 Tel.: +44 0115 924 9924.

      Abstract

      We aimed to ascertain whether there are any early differences in outcome between all titanium temporomandibular joint (TMJ) prostheses in patients allergic to metal and standard cobalt–chromium prostheses in patients not allergic to metal. All patients who had primary TMJ prostheses placed with one-year follow-up between March 2003 and February 2011 were included. We reviewed the basic characteristics of patients. The outcome variables measured included disease, pain, mouth opening, and diet. A total of 55 patients with 77 joint replacements fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Forty patients had standard cobalt–chromium alloy (Co–Cr–Mo) prostheses (20 unilateral and 20 bilateral), and 15 had all titanium prostheses (13 unilateral and 2 bilateral). Osteoarthritis was the most common disease in both groups. There was significant improvement in pain score at reviews at 6 weeks (p = 0.001) and 12 months (p = 0.03). Values between groups were not significant (p = 0.48 at 6 weeks, and p = 0.10 at 1 year). Mouth opening in each group improved significantly with continued gains between assessments at 6 weeks and 12 months (p = 0.001) but there were no significant differences between groups. Diet scores were significantly improved one year postoperatively in both groups (p = 0.001), but differences between groups were not significant (p = 0.90). At one year, outcomes for all titanium prostheses in patients allergic to metal were similarly favourable to those in patients who had no hypersensitivity to metal and had standard prostheses. No patient developed a hypersensitivity reaction, and no all titanium prosthesis failed during the one-year follow-up period.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Hallab N.
        • Merritt K.
        • Jacobs J.J.
        Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants.
        J Bone Joint Surg. 2001; 83A: 428-436
        • Brown S.A.
        • Merritt K.
        Biocompatibility.
        in: Petty W. Total joint replacement. WB Saunders, Philadelphia1991: 51-59
        • Merritt K.
        • Brown S.A.
        Distribution of cobalt chromium wear and corrosion products and biologic reactions.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 329: S233-S243
        • Sidebottom A.J.
        • Speculand B.
        • Hensher R.
        Foreign body response around total prosthetic metal-on-metal replacements of the temporomandibular joint in the UK.
        Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 46: 288-292
        • Wolford L.M.
        Factors to consider in joint prosthesis systems.
        Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2006; 19: 232-238
        • Rea W.J.
        Definition of chemical sensitivity.
        Chemical sensitivity, vol 1: principles and mechanisms. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton1992: 7-16
        • Rea W.J.
        Pollutant effects on the blood and reticuloendothelial system (lymphatic and immune system).
        Chemical sensitivity, vol. 1: principles and mechanisms. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton1992: 155-219
        • Hallab N.J.
        • Jacobs J.J.
        Biologic effects of implant debris.
        Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2009; 67: 182-188
        • Wolford L.M.
        • Morales-Ryan C.A.
        • Morales P.G.
        • Cassano D.S.
        Autologous fat grafts placed around temporomandibular joint total joint prostheses to prevent heterotopic bone formation.
        Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2008; 21: 248-254
        • Merritt K.
        • Rodrigo J.J.
        Immune response to synthetic materials. Sensitization of patients receiving orthopaedic implants.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 326: 71-79
        • Parker A.W.
        • Drez Jr., D.
        • Jacobs J.J.
        Titanium dermatitis after failure of a metal-backed patella.
        Am J Knee Surg. 1993; 6: 129-131
        • Schalock P.C.
        • Menné T.
        • Johansen J.D.
        • et al.
        Hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants—diagnostic algorithm and suggested patch test series for clinical use.
        Contact Dermatitis. 2012; 66: 4-19
        • Lalor P.A.
        • Revell P.A.
        • Gray A.B.
        • Wright S.
        • Railton G.T.
        • Freeman M.A.
        Sensitivity to titanium. A cause of implant failure?.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol. 1991; 73: 25-28
        • Nater J.P.
        • Brain R.G.
        • Deutman R.
        • Mulder T.J.
        The development of metal hypersensitivity in patients with metal-to-plastic hip arthroplasties.
        Contact Dermatitis. 1976; 2: 259-261
        • Black J.
        Metal on metal bearings. A practical alternative to metal on polyethylene total joints?.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 329: S244-S255
        • Jacobs J.J.
        • Skipor A.K.
        • Doorn P.F.
        • et al.
        Cobalt and chromium concentrations in patients with metal on metal total hip replacements.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 329: S256-S263
        • Mercuri L.G.
        • Wolford L.M.
        • Sanders B.
        • White R.D.
        • Hurder A.
        • Henderson W.
        Custom CAD/CAM total temporomandibular joint reconstruction system: preliminary multicenter report.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995; 53: 106-115
        • Mercuri L.G.
        The TMJ concepts patient fitted total temporomandibular joint reconstruction prosthesis. vol. 12. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics of North America, 2000: 73-91