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

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：N.R. Johnson¹ ; ² ; ^{nigel.johnson1@uqconnect.edu.au} ; M.J. Roberts² ; ³ ; S.A. Doi⁴ ; ⁵ ; M.D. Batstone¹ ; ²
• 关键词：temporomandibular joint ; surgery ; joint replacement ; prosthesis ; TMJ Concepts ; Biomet ; Christensen ; Nexus ; systematic review
• 刊名：International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• 出版年：2017
• 出版时间：January 2017
• 年：2017
• 卷：46
• 期：1
• 页码：86-92
• 全文大小：274 K
• 卷排序：46

文摘

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.