Nikolas K G De Meurechy1, Carlos E Zaror2,3, Maurice Y Mommaerts1. 1. European Face Centre, University Hospital Brussels, Brussels, Belgium. 2. Center for Research in Epidemiology, Economics and Oral Public Health (CIEESPO), Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile. 3. Faculty of Dentistry, Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Universidad San Sebastián, Puerto Montt, Chile.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This article aims to compare the difference in postoperative results in patients treated with either a patient-specific (PSI) or a stock temporomandibular total joint replacement system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The investigators performed a systematic review concerning postoperative results after placement of either a stock total joint replacement system or a PSI. PubMed Central, Web of Science, Cochrane Library Plus, Wiley Online Library, and EMBASE were used to conduct this search. All articles up to August 15, 2018, were scrutinized. All included articles were nonrandomized cohort studies. Maximal mouth opening (MMO) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for pain and diet before and after surgery were evaluated. The Methodological Index for NonRandomized Studies scale was used for quality assessment. Weighted mean difference was calculated and pooled by meta-analysis using random-effect models. RESULTS: The search identified 1581 articles, of which 15 were included. The average risk of bias was low. Both systems achieved significant increases in MMO and decreased VAS pain scores at 1, 2, and 3 years after surgery. No significant difference was found between the system types. Both achieved significant improvements in dietary VAS scores, with a more significant improvement for stock implants. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of detailed diagnostic evaluation tools allowing proper start-point categorization, there is a significant risk for selection bias in the pooled data. The PSI is more frequently chosen for cases with more significant joint degeneration, skewing postoperative results. A patient-fitted implant can provide significant operative and patient-centered advantages over a stock implant, which will likely be confirmed when observational cohort studies have included indications like the ones for stock prostheses. Furthermore, while current US Food and Drug Administration-approved stock implants contain cobalt -chromium -molybdenum, the newly manufactured PSI are made of titanium alloy, diminishing the risks of morbidity and implant failure.
PURPOSE: This article aims to compare the difference in postoperative results in patients treated with either a patient-specific (PSI) or a stock temporomandibular total joint replacement system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The investigators performed a systematic review concerning postoperative results after placement of either a stock total joint replacement system or a PSI. PubMed Central, Web of Science, Cochrane Library Plus, Wiley Online Library, and EMBASE were used to conduct this search. All articles up to August 15, 2018, were scrutinized. All included articles were nonrandomized cohort studies. Maximal mouth opening (MMO) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for pain and diet before and after surgery were evaluated. The Methodological Index for NonRandomized Studies scale was used for quality assessment. Weighted mean difference was calculated and pooled by meta-analysis using random-effect models. RESULTS: The search identified 1581 articles, of which 15 were included. The average risk of bias was low. Both systems achieved significant increases in MMO and decreased VAS pain scores at 1, 2, and 3 years after surgery. No significant difference was found between the system types. Both achieved significant improvements in dietary VAS scores, with a more significant improvement for stock implants. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of detailed diagnostic evaluation tools allowing proper start-point categorization, there is a significant risk for selection bias in the pooled data. The PSI is more frequently chosen for cases with more significant joint degeneration, skewing postoperative results. A patient-fitted implant can provide significant operative and patient-centered advantages over a stock implant, which will likely be confirmed when observational cohort studies have included indications like the ones for stock prostheses. Furthermore, while current US Food and Drug Administration-approved stock implants contain cobalt -chromium -molybdenum, the newly manufactured PSI are made of titanium alloy, diminishing the risks of morbidity and implant failure.