Literature DB >> 12796878

Comparison of 2 temporomandibular joint total joint prosthesis systems.

Larry M Wolford1, Douglas J Dingwerth, Reena M Talwar, Marcos C Pitta.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The study goal was to evaluate the comparative outcomes of patients treated with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) total joint prostheses, using either the Christensen prosthesis (TMJ Inc, Golden, CO) (CP) or the TMJ Concepts prosthesis (TMJ Concepts Inc, Camarillo, CA; formerly Techmedica Inc) (TP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-five consecutive patients treated with either CP or TP total joint prostheses were evaluated. The CP group consisted of 23 patients (40 prostheses; average patient age, 38.8 years). The TP group consisted of 22 patients (38 prostheses; average patient age, 38.5 years). The average number of previous operations for the CP group was 3.9, whereas it was 2.6 for the TP group. The CP and TP groups had an average follow-up of 20.8 and 33.0 months, respectively. Patients were evaluated for incisal opening and occlusal and skeletal stability. A visual analog scale was used for subjective assessment of TMJ pain (0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain), jaw function (0 = normal function, 10 = no function), and diet (0 = no limitations, 10 = liquids only). Statistical analysis was performed using an independent t test, and a value of P <.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS: The average postsurgical incisal opening for the CP group was 30.1 mm (increase of 6.7 mm), and that for the TP group was 37.3 mm (increase of 9.9 mm), indicating significant increase of the TP group (P =.008). The average postsurgical pain level for the CP group was 6.0, a decrease of 1.8, and that for the TP group was 4.1, a decrease of 3.1, indicating significant improvement for the TP group (P =.042). Postsurgical average jaw function for CP was 5.5, an improvement of 1.2. The postsurgical TP average was 3.9, an improvement of 3.0, showing significant improvement for the TP group (P =.008). Average postsurgical diet rating for the CP group was 5.4, an improvement of 1.8. The TP group average was 3.9, an improvement of 2.0, indicating significant improved eating ability for the TP group (P =.021). Skeletal and occlusal stability were good in both groups.
CONCLUSION: The TP group had statistically significant improved outcomes compared with the CP group relative to postsurgical incisal opening, pain, jaw function, and diet. Both groups showed good skeletal and occlusal stability. Copyright 2003 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons J Oral Maxillofac Sug 61:685-690, 2003

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12796878     DOI: 10.1053/joms.2003.50112

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0278-2391            Impact factor:   1.895


  17 in total

1.  TMJ inferior compartment arthroplasty procedure through a 25-year follow-up (functional arthroplasty).

Authors:  Piero Cascone; Valerio Ramieri; Paolo Arangio; Valentino Vellone; Achille Tarsitano; Claudio Marchetti
Journal:  Ann Stomatol (Roma)       Date:  2017-01-10

2.  Factors to consider in joint prosthesis systems.

Authors:  Larry M Wolford
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2006-07

3.  [Metallic condylar head prostheses to replace the temporomandibular joint].

Authors:  O Driemel; R S R Buch; R Dammer; C Reicheneder; T E Reichert; H Pistner
Journal:  Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir       Date:  2005-03

4.  Development of a mandibular motion simulator for total joint replacement.

Authors:  Nukhet Celebi; E Carlos Rohner; Jaime Gateno; Philip C Noble; Sabir K Ismaily; John F Teichgraeber; James J Xia
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 1.895

5.  Alloplastic total joint replacement in management of temporomandibular joint ankylosis.

Authors:  Ajoy Roychoudhury; Poonam Yadav; Ongkila Bhutia; Rohan Mane; Rahul Yadav; Devalina Goswami; Anson Jose
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2021-05-23

6.  Evaluation of temporomandibular joint total replacement with alloplastic prosthesis: observational study of 27 patients.

Authors:  Fernando Briceño; Ronmell Ayala; Karlina Delgado; Sabrina Piñango
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2013-06-04

7.  [Condylar reconstruction after resection of an intracapsular stomach carcinoma metastasis].

Authors:  A Kolk; R Sader; H-F Zeilhofer; I Becker; A Westermark; H-H Horch
Journal:  Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir       Date:  2003-09-16

8.  Cone beam computed tomography-based models versus multislice spiral computed tomography-based models for assessing condylar morphology.

Authors:  Liliane Rosas Gomes; Marcelo Regis Gomes; João Roberto Gonçalves; Antônio Carlos O Ruellas; Larry M Wolford; Beatriz Paniagua; Erika Benavides; Lúcia Helena Soares Cevidanes
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol       Date:  2015-10-20

9.  [Condylar resection alone versus alloplastic reconstruction. Comparison of long-term functional and cosmetic results].

Authors:  J K-H Meier; R Staudenmaier; N Kleinsasser; T E Reichert; O Driemel
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 10.  Patient specific total temporomandibular joint reconstruction: A review of biomaterial, designs, fabrication and outcomes.

Authors:  Divya Mehrotra; Sumit Kumar; Pankhuri Mehrotra; Richa Khanna; Vikram Khanna; Dominic Eggbeer; Peter Evans
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2021-03-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.