Long-term outcomes after total alloplastic temporomandibular joint reconstruction following exposure to failed materials.

PURPOSE: Total alloplastic temporomandibular joint (TMJ) reconstruction is often necessary because of the significant bony destruction resulting from failed Proplast-Teflon (Vitek, Houston, TX) and/or Silastic (Dow Corning, Arlington, TX) foreign body inflammatory reactions. Multiply operated and functionless, TMJ patients likewise have undergone total alloplastic reconstruction. Many of these patients were also exposed to failed TMJ implant materials. It was the purpose of this study to evaluate a population representative of both these groups of patients reconstructed with the Techmedica (now, TMJ Concepts, Ventura, CA) Total TMJ System to determine whether the long-term subjective and objective outcomes were affected by either the presence of the previously failed TMJ implant materials, the number of prior procedures, or both. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred ninety-eight patients who had been implanted with 332 Techmedica System total joints between 1990 and 1994 where divided into 4 groups based on their prior exposure to failed TMJ implant materials: group I, Proplast-Teflon (82 patients, 135 joints); group II, Silastic (28 patients, 46 joints); group III, both Proplast-Teflon and Silastic (25 patients, 46 joints); and group IV, no prior exposure to Proplast-Teflon or Silastic (63 patients, 105 joints). The mean follow-up was 60.2 +/- 40.3 months (range, 2 to 120 months). To determine whether exposure to either or both failed implant materials affected the long-term subjective and objective outcome variables, the groups were compared statistically using multivariate mixed modeling with age, sex, number of prior operations, years with TMJ problem, prior implant type, and implant sides as independent variables, and the relevant baseline measure as covariates.
RESULTS: For the subjective variables, patients exposed to Proplast-Teflon or Silastic had significantly higher mean pain scores long-term. The type of prior failed TMJ implant material was not statistically significant with regard to function. Patients exposed to Proplast-Teflon reported poorer diet consistency scores long-term. Objectively, patients with 5 or fewer prior TMJ surgeries exposed to neither failed implant or Silastic reported better long-term mean maximum interincisal opening than did those patients exposed to Proplast-Teflon or both failed materials. However, for patients with 6 or more prior TMJ surgeries, those exposed to Proplast-Teflon or both failed materials reported less decrease in mean maximum interincisal opening over time.
CONCLUSION: These data confirm what has been observed clinically, that in the population studied, multiply operated patients previously exposed to failed Proplast-Teflon alone or both failed Proplast-Teflon and Silastic have poorer reported long-term outcomes with alloplastic reconstruction. However, the total alloplastic TMJ reconstruction devices used in this study remained functional.