James R Fricton1, John O Look, Eric Schiffman, James Swift. 1. Received from the Department of Diagnostic and Surgical Sciences, University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, Minneapolis, MN., 55455, USA. frict001@umn.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term objective and subjective outcomes of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implant surgery for the treatment of painful TMJ disc displacement using temporary Silastic (Dow Corning Corporation, Midland, MI), permanent Silastic, or Proplast (Vitek, Houston, TX) implants to replace the disc. These cases were compared with other cases of the same diagnosis treated with either nonsurgical rehabilitation or nonimplant surgery involving discectomy or disc repair procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 466 patients who received treatment for unilateral or bilateral TMJ disc displacement before January 1, 1990. The 5 treatment groups noted above were compared for long-term outcomes. Objective outcome measurements for jaw function were performed using a calibrated examiner and the Craniomandibular Index (CMI). Subjective (self-reported) outcomes were obtained relative to jaw function (Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire [MFIQ]), symptom severity (Symptom Severity Index [SSI]), and the impact of pain (Global Pain Impact [GPI] scale). RESULTS: The results, adjusted for gender, baseline tomogram score, and baseline symptom scores, showed that the nonsurgical rehabilitation group (n = 159) and the group having TMJ surgery without implants (n = 149) had statistically better results than the group who underwent surgery with a Proplast implant (n = 94). These between-group differences included both objective signs (CMI), and subjective reports of jaw function (MFIQ), symptom severity (SSI), and global pain impact (GPI). The MFIQ score associated with the nonsurgical rehabilitation group was also statistically better than for the Silastic implant groups, including both the temporary (n = 31) and permanent (n = 33) implants. Clinical differences between groups were slight. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the use of interpositional disc implants in TMJ surgery is not associated with improved outcomes when compared with nonimplant surgery or nonsurgical rehabilitation. Copyright 2002 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:1400-1411, 2002
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term objective and subjective outcomes of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implant surgery for the treatment of painful TMJ disc displacement using temporary Silastic (Dow Corning Corporation, Midland, MI), permanent Silastic, or Proplast (Vitek, Houston, TX) implants to replace the disc. These cases were compared with other cases of the same diagnosis treated with either nonsurgical rehabilitation or nonimplant surgery involving discectomy or disc repair procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 466 patients who received treatment for unilateral or bilateral TMJ disc displacement before January 1, 1990. The 5 treatment groups noted above were compared for long-term outcomes. Objective outcome measurements for jaw function were performed using a calibrated examiner and the Craniomandibular Index (CMI). Subjective (self-reported) outcomes were obtained relative to jaw function (Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire [MFIQ]), symptom severity (Symptom Severity Index [SSI]), and the impact of pain (Global Pain Impact [GPI] scale). RESULTS: The results, adjusted for gender, baseline tomogram score, and baseline symptom scores, showed that the nonsurgical rehabilitation group (n = 159) and the group having TMJ surgery without implants (n = 149) had statistically better results than the group who underwent surgery with a Proplast implant (n = 94). These between-group differences included both objective signs (CMI), and subjective reports of jaw function (MFIQ), symptom severity (SSI), and global pain impact (GPI). The MFIQ score associated with the nonsurgical rehabilitation group was also statistically better than for the Silastic implant groups, including both the temporary (n = 31) and permanent (n = 33) implants. Clinical differences between groups were slight. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the use of interpositional disc implants in TMJ surgery is not associated with improved outcomes when compared with nonimplant surgery or nonsurgical rehabilitation. Copyright 2002 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:1400-1411, 2002
Authors: E L Schiffman; J O Look; J S Hodges; J Q Swift; K L Decker; K M Hathaway; R B Templeton; J R Fricton Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Bryan N Brown; William L Chung; Alejandro J Almarza; Matthew D Pavlick; Serafim N Reppas; Mark W Ochs; Alan J Russell; Stephen F Badylak Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2012-02-25 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: Joao N A R Ferreira; Ching-Chang Ko; Sandra Myers; James Swift; James R Fricton Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: Jolanda I Kamstra; Harriet Jager-Wittenaar; Pieter U Dijkstra; Paulien M Huisman; Rob P van Oort; Bernard F A M van der Laan; Jan L N Roodenburg Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-08-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: David Faustino Ângelo; Florencio Gil Monje; Raúl González-García; Christopher B Little; Lisete Mónico; Mário Pinho; Fábio Abade Santos; Belmira Carrapiço; Sandra Cavaco Gonçalves; Pedro Morouço; Nuno Alves; Carla Moura; Yadong Wang; Eric Jeffries; Jin Gao; Rita Sousa; Lia Lucas Neto; Daniel Caldeira; Francisco Salvado Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2017-03-02
Authors: Trevor P Bodine; Larry M Wolford; Eustaquio Araujo; Donald R Oliver; Peter H Buschang Journal: Prog Orthod Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 2.750