Analysis of the characteristics of standard alloplastic temporomandibular joint prostheses during mouth opening movement

doi:10.19438/j.cjoms.2024.04.006

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: To analyze the characteristics of alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement (ATJR) in mouth opening movement. METHODS: Jaw movement and maxillofacial CT data were collected from 10 normal temporomandibular joint volunteers and 10 patients who underwent unilateral Biomet standard joint replacement surgery. Three-dimensional reconstruction of the jawbone was performed using Proplan CMF 3.0 software, and the jawbone model was exported. The jaw movement data were combined with the jawbone model using Geomagic Wrap 2021 software, and a kinematic model was established using Anybody 7.0 software. Points were taken every 5 mm downward from the condyle/prosthesis apex(P₀-P_-50) to calculate the trajectory and arc length of each point during mouth opening. The artificial joint prosthesis was simulated to be installed on the non-replaced condyle of normal individuals and patients, and the differences in the range of motion between the prosthesis vertices during mouth opening were compared. SPSS 25.0 software package was used for data analysis. RESULTS: The movement trajectory of the condylar apex in normal individuals was a concave arc upwards, with an arc length of (15.18±2.31) mm, and the shortest movement trajectory was at P_-30. The movement trajectory of the alloplastic temporomandibular joint prosthesis(ATJP) apex was a convex short arc upwards, with a significantly shortened arc length compared to the corresponding point of the normal condyle(P_-10) [(3.55±0.45) mm vs (11.61±1.63) mm, P=0.00], and the shortest movement trajectory was at P_-20. The movement trajectory of the non-replaced condyle apex of the ATJP was similar in shape to that of the normal condyle, with an arc length of (13.35±1.54) mm and no significant difference (P=0.07), and the shortest movement trajectory was at P_-40. The range of motion of the ATJP apex was significantly smaller than that of the corresponding point on the non-replaced condyle and the normal condyle corresponding point P_-10(P=0.00). CONCLUSIONS: The sliding distance and range of the condylar prosthesis after standard temporomandibular joint replacement surgery are significantly smaller than the movement distance and range of the corresponding points on the normal and non-replaced condyles.

Key words: Temporomandibular joint prostheses, Temporomandibular joint replacement, Mouth opening movement

CLC Number:

R782.6

LI Xiang, DING Ruo-yi, WANG Xiu-mei, HE Dong-mei, WANG Dong-mei. Analysis of the characteristics of standard alloplastic temporomandibular joint prostheses during mouth opening movement[J]. China Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2024, 22(4): 353-359.

References

[1] Granquist EJ, Bouloux G, Dattilo D, et al.Outcomes and survivorship of Biomet microfixation total joint replacement system: results from an FDA postmarket study[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2020, 78(9): 1499-1508.
[2] Wolford LM, Mercuri LG, Schneiderman ED, et al.Twenty-year follow-up study on a patient-fitted temporomandibular joint prosthesis: the Techmedica/TMJ Concepts device[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2015, 73(5): 952-960.
[3] Peres Lima FGG, Rios LGC, Bianchi J, et al.Complications of total temporomandibular joint replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2023, 52(5): 584-594.
[4] Wojczyńska A, Leiggener CS, Bredell M, et al.Alloplastic total temporomandibular joint replacements: do they perform like natural joints? prospective cohort study with a historical control[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2016, 45(10): 1213-1221.
[5] 邹璐芗, 何冬梅. 正常颞下颌关节与人工关节假体髁突的运动比较[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2018, 11(3): 179-185.
Zou LX, He DM.Comparison of the kinematic of natural condyle in temporomandibular joint and alloplastic joint prosthesis[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Stomatology, 2018, 11(3): 179-185.
[6] Zumbrunn Wojczyńska A, Markova M, Ettlin DA, et al.In-vivo kinematic assessment of alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacements by means of helical axis: a cohort study with historical control[J]. J Biomech, 2021, 122: 110494.
[7] Mercuri LG, Anspach WE 3rd. Principles for the revision of total alloplastic TMJ prostheses[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2003, 32(4): 353-359.
[8] Celebi N, Rohner EC, Gateno J, et al.Development of a mandibular motion simulator for total joint replacement[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2011, 69(1): 66-79.
[9] Zhong YQ, Sun Q, He DM, et al.Study on the lateral pterygoid muscle status after artificial temporomandibular joint replacement[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2021, 50(11): 1496-1501.
[10] 白果, 何冬梅, 杨驰. 颞下颌人工关节应用进展[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2014, 7(3): 182-187.
Bai G, He DM, Yang C.Progress in application of total temporomandibular joint replacement[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Stomatology, 2014, 7(3): 182-187.
[11] Zou L, He D, Ellis E.A comparison of clinical follow-up of different total temporomandibular joint replacement prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2018, 76(2): 294-303.
[12] Johnson NR, Roberts MJ, Doi SA, et al. Total temporomandibular joint replacement prostheses: a systematic review and bias-adjusted meta-analysis[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2017, 46(1): 86-92.
[13] Zou L, Zhang L, He D, et al.Clinical and radiologic follow-up of Zimmer Biomet stock total temporomandibular joint replacement after surgical modifications[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2018, 76(12): 2518-2524.
[14] Commisso MS, Martínez-Reina J, Ojeda J, et al.Finite element analysis of the human mastication cycle[J]. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2015, 41: 23-35.
[15] Linsen SS, Schön A, Mercuri LG, et al.Unilateral, alloplastic temporomandibular joint reconstruction, biomechanically what happens to the contralateral temporomandibular joint? a prospective cohort study[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2021, 79(10): 2016-2029.
[16] Zou L, Zhong Y, Xiong Y, et al.A novel design of temporomandibular joint prosthesis for lateral pterygoid muscle attachment: a preliminary study[J]. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2020, 8: 630983.
[17] Wang J, Hua J, Ding R, et al.Comparative study of normal condyle and temporomandibular joint prosthesis movement during mouth opening by dynamic magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography[J]. Quant Imaging Med Surg, 2023, 13(7): 4147-4159.
[18] 陈克难, 姜俊岐, 王珺林,等. 健康成人下颌髁突运动包络面参数的初步测量及分析[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2022, 57(10): 1015-1021.
Chen KN, Jiang JQ, Wang JL, et al.Preliminary measurement and analysis of the condylar movement envelope surface parameters in healthy adults[J]. Chinese Journal of Stomatology, 2022, 57(10): 1015-1021.
[19] Leandro LF, Ono HY, Loureiro CC, et al.A ten-year experience and follow-up of three hundred patients fitted with the Biomet/Lorenz Microfixation TMJ replacement system[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2013, 42(8): 1007-1013.
[20] van Loon JP, Otten E, Falkenström CH, et al. Loading of a unilateral temporomandibular joint prosthesis: a three-dimensional mathematical study[J]. J Dent Res, 1998, 77(11): 1939-1947.
[21] van Loon JP, Falkenström CH, de Bont LG, et al. The theoretical optimal center of rotation for a temporomandibular joint prosthesis: a three-dimensional kinematic study[J]. J Dent Res, 1999, 78(1): 43-48.
[22] Zou L, He D, Yang C, et al.Preliminary study of standard artificial temporomandibular joint replacement with preservation of muscle attachment[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2021, 79(5): 1009-1018.
[23] De Meurechy N, Aktan MK, Boeckmans B, et al.Surface wear in a custom manufactured temporomandibular joint prosthesis[J]. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2022,110(6): 1425-1438.