Abstract
To evaluate and compare outcomes and complications associated with reconstruction
of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), we prospectively analysed the data of 70 patients
who had their joints replaced with stock prostheses during the period 2004-14 and
who had been followed up for five years. We used two types of stock prostheses: the
metal-on-metal Christensen system (CS), and the ultra-high-molecular-weight-polyethylene-on-metal
Biomet® system (BS). Data were collected at 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months postoperatively
and compared with preoperative measurements. Five years after the replacement there
was an increase in mean (SD) mouth opening from 2.0 (0.6) to 4.0 (0.5 cm) (p = 0.012) in the CS, and from 2.5 (1.0) cm to 4.1 (0.6) cm (p = 0.018) in the BS. The mean (SD) reductions in visual analogue pain scores were from
6.9 (1.6) to 2.0 (1.4) (p = 0.001) in the CS, and 6.5 (1.4) to 1.5 (1.1) (p = 0.001) in the BS. There were no significant differences in improvements in mouth opening
or reduction in pain between the two groups. However, there were differences in the
number of implants that failed, which led to removal and replacement of 2/14 prostheses
in the CS group and 3/77 in the BS group (p = 0.06). The results supported the placement of stock prostheses, as evidenced by a
low incidence of complications and adverse events, and a long-term improvement in
function and reduction in pain in the TMJ. The BS group had significantly fewer prosthetic
failures than the CS group.
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 accessOne-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 SurgeryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Historical development of alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement after 1945 and state of the art.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 38: 909-920
- Analysis of mandibular motion following unilateral and bilateral alloplastic TMJ reconstruction.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 40: 569-571
- Histological findings in soft tissues around temporomandibular joint prostheses after up to eight years of function.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 40: 18-25
- Mandibular kinematics in patients with alloplastic total temporomandibular joint replacement — a prospective study.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 70: 2057-2064
- Biomet microfixation temporomandibular joint replacement system: a 3-year follow-up study of patients treated during 1995 to 2005.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 70: 787-796
- Temporomandibular joint disorders: artificial joint replacements and future research needs.J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2006; 16: 459-474
- Total reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint: Up to 8 years of follow-up of patients treated with Biomet® total joint prostheses.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 39: 951-955
- Total alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement: the Czech-Slovak initial experience.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 41: 514-517
- A new surgical classification for temporomandibular joint disorders.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 42: 218-222
- Comparison of the outcomes of three surgical treatments for end-stage temporomandibular joint disease.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 43: 980-989
- Biomaterials in orthopaedics.J R Soc Interface. 2010; 5: 1137-1158
- Alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement: rationale for the use of custom devices.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 41: 1033-1040
- Evaluation of total alloplastic temporo-mandibular joint replacement with two different types of prostheses: a three-year prospective study.Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016; 21 (e766-75)
- A ten-year experience and follow-up of three hundred patients fitted with the Biomet/Lorenz Microfixation TMJ replacement system.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 42: 1007-1013
- Twenty-year follow-up study on a patient-fitted temporomandibular joint prosthesis: the techmedica/TMJ concepts device.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 73: 952-960
- Alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement systems: a systematic review of their history.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 47: 743-754
- Biomechanics of mandibular reconstruction: a review.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 39: 313-319
- Christensen vs Biomet Microfixation alloplastic TMJ implant: are there improvements? A numerical study.J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015; 43: 1398-1403
- Biomaterials in temporomandibular joint replacement: current status and future perspectives- a narrative review.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 47: 518-533
- Temporomandibular joint reconstruction with stock and custom-made devices: indications and results of a 14-year experience.J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017; 45: 1710-1715
- A comparison of clinical follow-up of different total temporomandibular joint replacement prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 76: 294-303
- Hypersensitivity reactions to metal implants: laboratory options.BMC Musculoskeletal Disord. 2016; 17: 486-500
- Management of recurrent heterotopic ossification around total alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 45: 1234-1236
- Acquired heterotopic ossification of the temporomandibular joint.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 46: 1562-1568
- Two-year prospective study of outcomes following total temporo-mandibular joint replacement.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 45: 78-84
- Particle disease: biologic mechanisms of periprosthetic osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty.Innate Immun. 2013; 19: 213-224
- The association between metal allergy, total knee arthroplasty and revision: study based on the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register.Acta Orthop. 2015; 86: 378-383
- Making sense of metal allergy and hypersensitivity to metallic implants in relation to hand surgery.J Hand Surg Am. 2017; 42: 737-746
- Serum metal levels in maxillofacial reconstructive surgery patients: a pilot study.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 76: 2074-2080
Article info
Publication history
Published online: November 07, 2019
Identification
Copyright
© 2019 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
