Literature DB >> 23522619

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 Hussain1, S Sah2, A J Sidebottom3.   

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.
Copyright © 2013 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  All-titanium temporomandibular joint replacement; Cobalt–chromium total temporomandibular joint replacement; Degenerative arthritis of the TMJ; Metal-allergic patients; TMJ replacement

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23522619     DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.02.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0266-4356            Impact factor:   1.651


  5 in total

Review 1.  Alloplastic or autogenous reconstruction of the TMJ.

Authors:  Andrew J Sidebottom
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2013-09-06

Review 2.  Alloplastic reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint.

Authors:  Rushil R Dang; Pushkar Mehra
Journal:  J Istanb Univ Fac Dent       Date:  2017-12-02

Review 3.  Clinical guidelines for total temporomandibular joint replacement.

Authors:  Tetsuya Yoda; Nobumi Ogi; Hiroyuki Yoshitake; Tetsuji Kawakami; Ritsuo Takagi; Kenichiro Murakami; Hidemichi Yuasa; Toshirou Kondoh; Kanchu Tei; Kenichi Kurita
Journal:  Jpn Dent Sci Rev       Date:  2020-04-15

4.  Blade needle therapy versus conventional acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xunlong Yin; Yuan Liu; Wu Liu; Wei Liang; Qingyong Liang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-07-29       Impact factor: 1.817

Review 5.  A review of temporomandibular joint-related papers published between 2014-2015.

Authors:  Vaibhav Singh; K N V Sudhakar; Kiran Kumar Mallela; Rajat Mohanty
Journal:  J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2017-12-26
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.