Advertisement

Total temporomandibular joint replacement prostheses: a systematic review and bias-adjusted meta-analysis

  • N.R. Johnson
    Correspondence
    Address: Nigel Johnson, Maxillofacial Department, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Tel: +61 7 36368111; Fax: +61 7 3646 3545.
    Affiliations
    Maxillofacial Department, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
    Search for articles by this author
  • M.J. Roberts
    Affiliations
    School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
    Search for articles by this author
  • S.A. Doi
    Affiliations
    Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

    College of Medicine, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
    Search for articles by this author
  • M.D. Batstone
    Affiliations
    Maxillofacial Department, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
    Search for articles by this author
Published:September 17, 2016DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2016.08.022

      Abstract

      The aim of the present study was to determine which prosthesis has resulted in the best outcomes after total temporomandibular joint replacement (TMJR). A comprehensive electronic search was undertaken in September 2015. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies that described one of the three current TMJR systems and that had pre- and postoperative data on at least two of the following TMJR indications: pain, diet, function, and maximum inter-incisal opening (MIO). Sixteen papers were included in the systematic review, reporting 10 retrospective studies and six prospective studies (no randomized controlled or case-controlled trials). A total 312 patients with 505 TMJ Concepts prostheses, 728 patients with 1048 Biomet prostheses, and 125 patients with 196 Nexus prostheses were included in the analysis. There was no real difference between the various TMJR systems in terms of pain or diet scores. Function scores improved with the TMJ Concepts, but this was the only prosthesis for which data were available. Biomet prostheses appeared to have a greater increase in MIO mean gain compared to TMJ Concepts and Nexus prostheses; however this was heavily biased by one study. Without this study, there was no real difference in MIO. It is concluded that the prostheses are similar, but most data are available for the TMJ Concepts prosthesis, with results being favourable.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Sidebottom A.J.
        Guidelines for the replacement of temporomandibular joints in the United Kingdom.
        Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 46: 146-147
        • Aagaard E.
        • Thygesen T.
        A prospective, single-centre study on patient outcomes following temporomandibular joint replacement using a custom-made Biomet TMJ prosthesis.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 43: 1229-1235
        • Briceno F.
        • Ayala R.
        • Delgado K.
        • Pinango S.
        Evaluation of temporomandibular joint total replacement with alloplastic prosthesis: observational study of 27 patients.
        Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2013; 6: 171-178
        • Giannakopoulos H.E.
        • Sinn D.P.
        • Quinn P.D.
        Biomet Microfixation Temporomandibular Joint Replacement System: a 3-year follow-up study of patients treated during 1995 to 2005.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 70 (discussion 795–796): 787-794
        • Guarda-Nardini L.
        • Manfredini D.
        • Ferronato G.
        Temporomandibular joint total replacement prosthesis: current knowledge and considerations for the future.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 37: 103-110
        • Kanatas A.N.
        • Jenkins G.W.
        • Smith A.B.
        • Worrall S.F.
        Changes in pain and mouth opening at 1 year following temporomandibular joint replacement—a prospective study.
        Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 49: 455-458
        • Leandro L.F.
        • Ono H.Y.
        • Loureiro C.C.
        • Marinho K.
        • Guevara H.A.
        A ten-year experience and follow-up of three hundred patients fitted with the Biomet/Lorenz Microfixation TMJ replacement system.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 42: 1007-1013
        • Machon V.
        • Hirjak D.
        • Beno M.
        • Foltan R.
        Total alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement: the Czech–Slovak initial experience.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 41: 514-517
        • Mercuri L.G.
        Subjective and objective outcomes in patients reconstructed with a custom-fitted alloplastic temporomandibular joint prosthesis.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999; 57: 1427-1430
        • Murdoch B.
        • Buchanan J.
        • Cliff J.
        Temporomandibular joint replacement: a New Zealand perspective.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 43: 595-599
        • Westermark A.
        Total reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint. Up to 8 years of follow-up of patients treated with Biomet total joint prostheses.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 39: 951-955
        • Mercuri L.G.
        Patient-fitted (“custom”) alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement technique.
        Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2011; 19: 233-242
        • Mercuri L.G.
        Alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement: rationale for the use of custom devices.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 41: 1033-1040
        • Chase D.C.
        • Hudson J.W.
        • Gerard D.A.
        • Russell R.
        • Chambers K.
        • Curry J.R.
        • Latta J.E.
        • Christensen R.W.
        The Christensen prosthesis. A retrospective clinical study.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1995; 80: 273-278
        • Wolford L.M.
        • Karras S.C.
        Autologous fat transplantation around temporomandibular joint total joint prostheses: preliminary treatment outcomes.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997; 55 (discussion 251–252): 245-251
        • Mercuri L.G.
        • Wolford L.M.
        • Sanders B.
        • White R.D.
        • Giobbie-Hurder A.
        Long-term follow-up of the CAD/CAM patient fitted total temporomandibular joint reconstruction system.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002; 60: 1440-1448
        • Mercuri L.G.
        • Giobbie-Hurder A.
        Long-term outcomes after total alloplastic temporomandibular joint reconstruction following exposure to failed materials.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004; 62: 1088-1096
        • Speculand B.
        • Hensher R.
        • Powell D.
        Total prosthetic replacement of the TMJ: experience with two systems 1988–1997.
        Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000; 38: 360-369
        • Saeed N.
        • Hensher R.
        • McLeod N.
        • Kent J.
        Reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint autogenous compared with alloplastic.
        Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002; 40: 296-299
        • Wolford L.M.
        • Dingwerth D.J.
        • Talwar R.M.
        • Pitta M.C.
        Comparison of 2 temporomandibular joint total joint prosthesis systems.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003; 61 (discussion 690): 685-690
        • Wolford L.M.
        • Pitta M.C.
        • Reiche-Fischel O.
        • Franco P.F.
        TMJ Concepts/Techmedica custom-made TMJ total joint prosthesis: 5-year follow-up study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003; 32: 268-274
        • Moher D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Altman D.G.
        Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 1006-1012
        • Johnson N.
        • Roberts M.
        • Batstone M.
        Total temporomandibular joint replacement prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.
        PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. 2015;
        • Slim K.
        • Nini E.
        • Forestier D.
        • Kwiatkowski F.
        • Panis Y.
        • Chipponi J.
        Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument.
        ANZ J Surg. 2003; 73: 712-716
        • Doi S.A.
        • Barendregt J.J.
        • Khan S.
        • Thalib L.
        • Williams G.M.
        Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials I: the inverse variance heterogeneity model.
        Contemp Clin Trials. 2015; 45: 130-138
        • Doi S.A.
        • Barendregt J.J.
        • Khan S.
        • Thalib L.
        • Williams G.M.
        Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials II: the quality effects model.
        Contemp Clin Trials. 2015; 45: 123-129
        • Roberts M.J.
        • Williamson D.A.
        • Hadway P.
        • Doi S.A.
        • Gardiner R.A.
        • Paterson D.L.
        Baseline prevalence of antimicrobial resistance and subsequent infection following prostate biopsy using empirical or altered prophylaxis: a bias-adjusted meta-analysis.
        Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2014; 43: 301-309
        • Wolford L.
        • Morales-Ryan C.
        • Morales P.
        • Cassano D.
        Autologous fat grafts placed around temporomandibular joint total joint prostheses to prevent heterotopic bone formation.
        Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2008; 21: 248-254
        • Pinto L.P.
        • Wolford L.M.
        • Buschang P.H.
        • Bernardi F.H.
        • Goncalves J.R.
        • Cassano D.S.
        Maxillo-mandibular counter-clockwise rotation and mandibular advancement with TMJ Concepts total joint prostheses: part III—pain and dysfunction outcomes.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 38: 326-331
        • Wolford L.M.
        • Mercuri L.G.
        • Schneiderman E.D.
        • Movahed R.
        • Allen W.
        Twenty-year follow-up study on a patient-fitted temporomandibular joint prosthesis: the Techmedica/TMJ Concepts device.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 73: 952-960
        • Sidebottom A.J.
        • Gruber E.
        One-year prospective outcome analysis and complications following total replacement of the temporomandibular joint with the TMJ Concepts system.
        Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 51: 620-624
        • Burgess M.
        • Bowler M.
        • Jones R.
        • Hase M.
        • Murdoch B.
        Improved outcomes after alloplastic TMJ replacement: analysis of a multicenter study from Australia and New Zealand.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 72: 1251-1257
        • Sanovich R.
        • Mehta U.
        • Abramowicz S.
        • Widmer C.
        • Dolwick M.F.
        Total alloplastic temporomandibular joint reconstruction using Biomet stock prostheses: the University of Florida experience.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 43: 1091-1095
        • Wolford L.M.
        • Pinto L.P.
        • Cardenas L.E.
        • Molina O.R.
        Outcomes of treatment with custom-made temporomandibular joint total joint prostheses and maxillomandibular counter-clockwise rotation.
        Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2008; 21: 18-24
        • Mercuri L.G.
        • Ali F.A.
        • Woolson R.
        Outcomes of total alloplastic replacement with periarticular autogenous fat grafting for management of reankylosis of the temporomandibular joint.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 66: 1794-1803
        • Mercuri L.G.
        • Edibam N.R.
        • Giobbie-Hurder A.
        Fourteen-year follow-up of a patient-fitted total temporomandibular joint reconstruction system.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 65: 1140-1148
        • Mercuri L.G.
        • Wolford L.M.
        • Sanders B.
        • White D.
        • Hurder A.
        • Henderson W.
        Custom CAD/CAM total temporomandibular joint reconstruction system: preliminary multicenter report.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995; 53: 106-115
        • Coleta K.E.
        • Wolford L.M.
        • Goncalves J.R.
        • Pinto Ados S.
        • Cassano D.S.
        • Goncalves D.A.
        Maxillo-mandibular counter-clockwise rotation and mandibular advancement with TMJ Concepts total joint prostheses: part IV—soft tissue response.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 38: 637-646
        • Coleta K.E.
        • Wolford L.M.
        • Goncalves J.R.
        • Pinto Ados S.
        • Cassano D.S.
        • Goncalves D.A.
        Maxillo-mandibular counter-clockwise rotation and mandibular advancement with TMJ Concepts total joint prostheses: part II—airway changes and stability.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 38: 228-235
        • Dela Coleta K.E.
        • Wolford L.M.
        • Goncalves J.R.
        • Pinto Ados S.
        • Pinto L.P.
        • Cassano D.S.
        Maxillo-mandibular counter-clockwise rotation and mandibular advancement with TMJ Concepts total joint prostheses: part I—skeletal and dental stability.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 38: 126-138