AbstractThe reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint presents a multifaceted clinical challenge in the realm of head and neck surgery, underscored by its relatively infrequent occurrence and the lack of comprehensive clinical guidelines. This review aims to elucidate the available approaches for TMJ reconstruction, with a particular emphasis on recent groundbreaking advancements. The current spectrum of TMJ reconstruction integrates diverse surgical techniques, such as costochondral grafting, coronoid process grafting, revascularized fibula transfer, transport distraction osteogenesis, and alloplastic TMJ replacement. Despite the available options, a singular, universally accepted ‘gold standard’ for reconstructive techniques or materials remains elusive in this field. Our review comprehensively summarizes the current available methods of TMJ reconstruction, focusing on both autologous and alloplastic prostheses. It delves into the differences of each surgical technique and outlines the implications of recent technological advances, such as 3D printing, which hold the promise of enhancing surgical precision and patient outcomes. This evolutionary progress aims not only to improve the immediate results of reconstruction but also to ensure the long-term health and functionality of the TMJ, thereby improving the quality of life for patients with end-stage TMJ disorders.
IntroductionThe temporomandibular joint (TMJ) functions as a complex sliding-hinge mechanism, facilitating the articulation between the mandible and the temporal bone of the skull. Diagnosing acute or chronic extra-articular temporomandibular disorders (TMD) relies on identifying dysfunctions or discomfort in the masticatory muscles and the jaw, specifically within the TMJ region. Notably, the etiology of most TMD cases is attributed to muscular factors, and 85%–90% of these patients can be treated effectively with non-invasive interventions.1 However, in situations where end-stage TMD occurs within the joint, more invasive interventions become necessary to restore the functional integrity of the mandible.2TMD are characterized by the emergence of functional and pathological disturbances accompanied by discomfort around the TMJ. Commonly, these disorders encompass auditory manifestations within the TMJ, such as clicking, alongside restricted mandibular mobility, pain in the ear and neck regions, and headaches.3 Clinically, 95% of individuals exhibit manifestations correlating with extra-articular TMD. Within this cohort, ~50% display complications unrelated to the TMJ itself. Consequently, this delineates that ~45% of cases represent genuine extra-articular, muscle-related TMD. These particular instances typically receive management through non-surgical avenues, including pharmacotherapy, the application of oral appliances, or physiotherapeutic interventions, thereby obviating the need for invasive treatment methodologies. A mere 5% of individuals diagnosed with TMD present with intra-articular variations. These cases are typically associated with a range of complex pathologies, including developmental anomalies, neoplastic conditions, traumatic arthritis, and end-stage ankylosis, frequently necessitating the implementation of invasive therapeutic interventions.4 Among the available intra-articular TMD management options, arthroscopy represents a minimally invasive approach that can facilitate the liberation or repositioning of the articular disc,5 or execute a discectomy in cases where the articular disc is identified as torn, dislocated, or misshapen.5However, in instances where intra-articular disease advances to an end-stage condition, the necessity for joint replacement may arise. End-stage TMJ pathology leads to significant deterioration in both the physiological functionality and structural integrity of the mandible, necessitating total joint replacement (TMJR). This procedure typically involves either autogenous or alloplastic joint replacements. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of publications on the topic of autogenous or alloplastic joint replacements, utilizing the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database. Our analysis generated an overlay visualization map of keyword co-occurrence, revealing emerging research hotspots such as “growth,” “accuracy,” “3D printing,” and “ankylosis” (Fig. 1a). In addition, we observed a significant increase in the volume of publications in this field over the past decades, from 1977 to 2024 (Fig. 1b). This growth underscores the active engagement of scholars from diverse institutions and countries in TMJR research, highlighting its global impact and the urgent need for advancements in this area (Fig. 1c). Further analysis of keywords with citation bursts and co-cited references over the past five years emphasizes the rising popularity and relevance of “3D printing” and “virtual surgical planning” in recent advancements (Fig. 1d).Fig. 1Bibliometric analysis of relevant publications on autogenous or alloplastic TMJ replacements. Using CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Scimago Graphica for visualization, this figure encapsulates various dimensions of the research landscape. a The keyword co-occurrence map illustrates the temporal overlap of key terms appearing at least 15 times, with font size denoting keyword frequency. b A bar chart displays the annual distribution of relevant publications from 1992 to 2024, highlighting the top 10 keywords in the field. c An international collaboration map identifies countries/regions contributing at least 20 publications. d The top 20 keywords featuring strong citation bursts are presented, with a red bar signifying peak citation yearsFull size imageHistorical records from the early 20th century indicate various sources for autogenous TMJR, such as the costochondral rib, fibula, transport distraction osteogenesis, coronoid process, iliac crest, and sternoclavicular constructs. Among these, the costochondral rib, coronoid process, distraction osteogenesis, and revascularized fibula transfers have become the most common methods.6 In the 1960s, Sir John Charnley pioneered the introduction of alloplastic orthopedic joint replacement using metal prostheses.7 Over the subsequent six decades, a diverse range of designs and materials have been developed for TMJR, varying from stock TMJ prostheses to more complex patient-fitted and 3D-printed systems. Initially, materials such as stainless steel and cobalt-chromium-molybdenum (Co–Cr–Mo) were commonly applied in TMJR. However, in recent years, there has been a significant shift towards the use of titanium, polyethylene, ceramics, and 3D printing biomaterials due to their growing popularity and potential advantages6 (Fig. 2).Fig. 2Current application of autologous tissue transplantation and alloplastic joint replacement in TMJ reconstruction. Current application of autologous tissue transplantation and alloplastic joint replacement in TMJ reconstruction. Adapted with permission from refs. 29,53,111,122,291,297,298. Copyright © 2023 by the authors; Copyright © The Author(s) 2019; Copyright © 2018 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons; Copyright © 2019 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons; Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc; Copyright © 2022 Tanta Dental Journal; Copyright © 2017 Elsevier IncFull size imageThis review will concentrate on providing a comprehensive summary of the most frequently utilized techniques in TMJR. In addition, we will discuss the contemporary state-of-the-art pertaining to various TMJR systems. Furthermore, the review will explore the potential of emerging materials that might overcome the existing limitations in the field.Autologous tissue transplantation in TMJ reconstructionIn 1908, Bardenheuer pioneered the use of a patient’s fourth metatarsal for mandibular condyle replacement, marking the initial application of autogenous reconstruction in this field.8 This approach subsequently established itself as the gold standard for addressing developmental deformities, end-stage TMJ pathology, and ankylosis (Table 1).Table 1 Advantages and limitations for autologous tissue transplantation of TMJRFull size tableCostochondral graftsFirst described by Gillies in 1920,9 ostochondral grafts (CCG) have since become the autogenous bone graft of choice for reconstructing the ramus-condyle unit (RCU), owing to their biological compatibility, limited donor site morbidity, and growth potential.10,11 CCGs are believed to possess primary and secondary growth centers, situated at the juncture of the cartilaginous section and bony parts of the graft, mirroring the growth rate of the mandibular condyle.12 Among the fifth, sixth, and seventh ribs typically utilized for reconstruction, the sixth rib is the most commonly selected13 (Fig. 3).Fig. 3Costochondral grafts used in TMJ reconstruction. a Computer-assisted surgical simulation technology and three-dimensional reconstruction of TMJ, the sixth rib, and surgical template to guide accurate costochondral graft cutting.298 Copyright © 2022 Tanta Dental Journal. b Three-dimensional reconstruction of ramus and costochondral graft with left TMJ ankylosis, pre- and post-surgery.29 Copyright © 2017 Elsevier IncFull size imageInitially, CCG was predominantly used in pediatric patients for its potential to accommodate growth in skeletally immature individuals.14,15 Despite this advantage, well-documented complications such as resorption, fracture, ankylosis, and unpredictable growth patterns frequently emerge post-grafting.16,17,18 Medra observed a re-ankylosis rate of 9%, graft resorption in 25%, and overgrowth in 4% among patients undergoing CCG for TMJR.19 Although autogenous CCG is theorized to grow in tandem with the patient, this growth has often been reported as unpredictable or resulting in ankylosis.17,18,20,21,22 Long-term studies on CCG for TMJ reconstruction reveal excessive growth on the treated side in 54% of patients, with only 38% achieving symmetrical RCU (ramus-condyle unit) four years post-TMJR.11 Similarly, another study noted significant short-term improvements in mandibular and facial symmetry in hemifacial microsomia patients; however, a 93% rate of secondary surgery requirement emerged for symmetry maintenance, attributed to prevalent undergrowth a decade post-TMJR with CCG.23 In a comprehensive retrospective review of 76 patients who underwent CCG for TMJR, Kent16 observed a notably higher complication rate in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of ankylosis, often necessitating additional surgeries. These complications are potentially attributable to inadequate revascularization and micromotion.A recent systematic review13 assessing complications in adolescent patients undergoing CCG for TMJR included 8 studies and a total of 95 included cases. Reported postoperative complications encompassed re-ankylosis (6.32%), insufficient graft growth (22.11%), unpredictable graft overgrowth (13.70%), absence of graft growth (3.20%) and subsequent facial asymmetry (20%). In addition, a related meta-analysis highlighted graft overgrowth in 30.89% of cases, while optimal growth was observed in 55.89% of subjects.24 Consequently, employing CCG in young patients for temporomandibular ankylosis reconstruction is associated with a considerable risk of growth abnormalities. The necessity of using cartilage-containing grafts for mandibular growth maintenance and restoration has been recently questioned. To address these challenges, technical modifications have been suggested, including limiting the cartilaginous cap’s thickness to deter overgrowth and lining the glenoid fossa with soft tissue, such as vascularized temporalis fascia,25,26,27,28,29,30 or alternative interpositional materials,31 particularly when the native disc is unrecoverable, thereby diminishing the likelihood of re-ankylosis and growth abnormalities.10,11,32 Kaban et al.10 noted that maintaining 3 to 4 mm of cartilage is sufficient to prevent both ankylosis and overgrowth. Some studies have also advocated for ipsilateral and/or contralateral coronoidectomy to enhance mouth opening.22,25,27,28 Despite this, a recent biomechanical analysis revealed that bilateral TMJ reconstruction combined with coronoidectomy for substantial mandibular advancement (≥10 mm) can significantly increase shear force, potentially leading to fractures at the costal-cartilage junction. This suggests that the necessity of coronoidectomy should be thoroughly evaluated before proceeding.33 Moreover, advancements in endoscopy have facilitated the use of intra-oral, subangular, and modified preauricular incisions, offering alternatives to the traditional submandibular approach for CCG34,35Coronoid process graftThe Coronoid Process Graft (CPG) emerged as a prominent grafting option for TMJR, first introduced by Youmans in 1969.36 Since its inception, CPG has gained widespread acceptance for addressing TMJ ankylosis and severe mandibular retrognathia, with particular prominence in China.37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45 In several of these interventions, interpositional materials such as temporal muscle myofascial flaps,37,39,46,47 prosthodontic membrane,43 or native articular disc41 have been utilized to enhance the outcomes of the grafting procedure.The nature cortical density of the coronoid process renders it more capable of enduring substantial forces compared to CCG, a feature mirrored in its lower ankylosis rates (2.98%) as opposed to ~8% observed with other graft types.24,48,49 Notably, a comprehensive long-term retrospective cohort study revealed a higher likelihood of TMJ ankylosis recurrence in adults treated with CPG (26.7%), compared to those undergoing reconstruction with either CCG or distraction osteogenesis, which reported no recurrence at a 10-year follow-up.50 This observed variance may be attributed to factors such as the classification of TMJ ankylosis, the extent of surgical removal of bony fusion, and inadequately lengthy follow-up periods. The study also proposed that resorption of the coronoid process could stimulate osteoblast differentiation and new bone formation within the TMJ biomechanical environment, potentially leading to reankylosis.50 Despite these considerations, reconstructions using the coronoid process have been associated with improved masticatory efficiency, bite force, and range of motion compared to other grafting methods.51 In addition, incorporating a simultaneous coronoidectomy has been shown to enhance mouth opening,37 and employing CPG for TMJR obviates the need for a secondary surgical donor site (Fig. 4a).Fig. 4Coronoid process graft used in TMR reconstruction. a Preoperative maxillofacial hard tissue structures and surgical simulation of the autogenous coronoid process graft reconstruction for the treatment of unilateral temporomandibular joint ankylosis.45 Copyright © 2017 Liu et al. b Planned surgical removal of specimen (condyle and ramus) and harvesting and rotation of coronoid-ramus graft, the inverted coronoid graft is secured to the reconstruction plate and fixated distally initially using guide holes.53 Copyright © 2019 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeonsFull size imageThe most prevalent complications associated with coronoid grafts are graft resorption (36.3%) and temporary nerve paresis (8.69%)24,48,49,52 with the frontal branch of the facial nerve being the most commonly affected. Nonetheless, complete recovery was observed within 3–6 months.48 Zhu41 reported no occlusal changes due to bony resorption at a 2-year follow-up, whereas Huang’s study52 highlighted a significant increase in malocclusion and a more pronounced decrease in ramus height in the CPG group in comparison with the CCG group. A recent meta-analysis revealed that both CCG and CPG grafts for TMJR performed similarly in terms of re-ankylosis rates and postoperative MIO. However, the CPG group exhibited a notably lower relapse rate of 2.98%, while the pooled relapse rate for CCG was ~8%.24 A long-term follow-up study demonstrated improved joint function in both pedicled coronoid process grafts on the temporal muscle and autogenous free coronoid process grafts. The latter, however, showed more notable bony resorption and a higher decrease in mandibular ramus height,42 suggesting that interpositional tissue may mitigate bony resorption and enhance long-term outcomes in CPG application for TMJR. In addition, Heffez introduced a novel technique for condylar reconstruction involving the rotation of the ipsilateral coronoid process-mandibular ramus by 180° along its horizontal axis to serve as a replacement for the excised condyle, supported by visual surgical planning53 (Fig. 4b). However, this method, which demonstrated resistance to resorption and maintained the morphology of the ramus and condyle a limited number of cases, was not recommended for growing patients. Furthermore, visual surgical planning has been proven to be an effective approach for improving the safety and efficacy of condyle reconstruction, particularly in patients with bilateral TMJ ankylosis using CPG, resulting in fewer postoperative malocclusions and facial nerve injuries.54Similar to CCG, the application of CPG in condylar reconstruction prompts a pertinent question, particularly regarding their growth potential and suitability for TMJR in children with unilateral TMJ ankylosis. A study with a 5-year follow-up period explored this potential in adolescent patients who underwent condyle reconstruction using an ipsilateral coronoid process, supplemented by interposed pedicled temporalis fascial flap.55 The findings revealed that, post-TMJR with CPG, there was continued growth in both the ramus height and mandibular length (25% increase in height and 26% increase in length), albeit the growth deficit was not fully compensated. Specifically, the increase in the ramus height on the affected side was 47% less, and the mandibular length on the affected side was 27% shorter in comparison to the healthy side.55,56 Consequently, a second surgical intervention may be necessary for adolescent patients undergoing TMJR with CPG.Revascularized fibula transferSince its inaugural application in mandibular reconstruction in 1989,57 the revascularized fibula transfer (RFT) has emerged as the cornerstone for repairing critical-sized segmental defects of the mandible—predominantly following oncologic resection, trauma, or osteonecrosis—over the past several decades.6,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70 The fibular free flap technique offers considerable versatility, enabling the reconstruction of any mandibular segment through precisely angled osteotomies. The majority of patients have reported excellent bony contours, the ability to resume oral feeding, achieve esthetically pleasing results, and maintain clear speech. Nevertheless, the accompanying soft tissue deficit, particularly noticeable in the buccal and parotid areas due to fat loss, often leads to facial asymmetry.59Reconstructing mandibular defects that involve the condyle present a significant challenge, particularly in restoring the function of the TMJ using RFT. Achieving precise alignment of the bone graft is critical for the full restoration of joint function. In this context, VSP and computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology emerge as valuable tools for the accurate reconstruction of mandibular condyle defects using RFT, potentially eliminating the need for additional procedures. Although initial studies have not demonstrated functional superiority of CAD/CAM-assisted TMJ reconstructions using RFT over traditional techniques, these advanced methods may facilitate more precise reconstructions of the TMJ.71 Moreover, they offer the potential to significantly reduce preoperative irradiation volume and decrease the number of required intraoperative osteotomies.69,70,71,72,73,74Condylar reconstruction via RFT transfer typically employs three approaches: grafting the condylar head onto the fibula when oncologically viable60 (Fig. 5a, b), or direct placement of the transfer into the glenoid fossa, with or without prior contouring59,61 (Fig. 5c–f). The preservation of the condylar head, recognized as a critical growth center for the mandible in pediatric patients, is crucial to circumventing long-term sequelae such as malocclusion and associated maxillary deformity.60 Nonetheless, recent research has highlighted an increased risk of locoregional recurrence when preserving the condyle in cases of posterior mandibular lesions.75 Remarkably, instances of ankylosis have not been reported even when the fibula’s distal end is directly inserted into the glenoid fossa without contouring, under an intact articular disc to serve as a neocondyle, across 1–2 years of follow-up.59,61,63,68,76,77 Furthermore, evidence of new condyle regeneration characterized by cartilaginous tissue formation has been documented in RFTs lacking initial cartilage, at one-year post-implantation.64Fig. 5Revascularized fibula transfer used in TMJ reconstruction. a Planned reconstruction with 4 fibular segments and grafting the condylar head onto the fibula. b Pre-bent reconstruction bar contoured to preoperative model (left) then attached to the fibular free flap following osteotomies (right).299 Copyright © The Author(s) 2016. c, d A free-fibula flap is virtually positioned with one osteotomy to facilitate the planned mandibular position and mimic the contralateral mandibular contour, which has been directly transposed onto the glenoid fossa. e A surgical guide is fabricated to dictate the length and internal osteotomy of the fibula flap. f The fibula flap is harvested and an AlloDerm (Allergan, Inc, Parsippany, NJ) cap is applied to serve as the articulating surface.122 Copyright © 2017 Elsevier IncFull size imageThe potential for severe complications, such as ankylosis and functional limitations of the TMJ, warrants careful consideration when employing RFT for condylar reconstruction. Future research should meticulously assess the impact of the TMJ disc’s presence on surgical outcomes. The preservation and reattachment of the TMJ disc and the lateral pterygoid muscle within the glenoid fossa may sustain TMJ’s normal functionality and diminish the likelihood of re-ankylosis.65,77 Notably, Resnick observed a 63% re-ankylosis rate over a 4-year follow-up in patients undergoing RFT for ramus and condyle construction aimed at treating hemifacial microsomia, especially Kaban-Pruzansky type III mandibular deformities.78 A significant factor influencing ankylosis incidence was identified as the application of a sagittal ramus osteotomy on the contralateral side. This procedure facilitates rotational adjustment and mitigates the force exerted by the fibula against the skull base in skeletally mature patients, thereby lowering the ankylosis rate.RFT transfer presents similar challenges to CCG and CPG for TMJ reconstruction within the growing facial skeleton. Recent studies64,79 have highlighted the absence of growth potential in RFT, suggesting that growing patients undergoing TMJR with RFT may require a bilateral sagittal split osteotomy upon reaching skeletal maturity. Furthermore, there appears to be an increased risk of ankylosis post-TMJR using RFT, particularly in skeletally immature patients at the time of surgery.78 However, employing RFT that includes the proximal epiphysis—comprising the growth plate and articular surface—and positioning it towards the articular fossa of the temporal bone has demonstrated promising functional and esthetic outcomes in adolescent patients. Such an approach has resulted in the growing reconstructed RCU in harmony with the contralateral side, eliminating the need for surgical revisions one-year post-operation.80Transport distraction osteogenesisDistraction osteogenesis (DO) represents a pivotal technique for TMJR, especially in scenarios lacking suitable bone graft options. DO induces bone regeneration through gradual separation of surgically divided bone segments, following a posterior mandibular vertical ramus osteotomy.81 Essentially, a vertical growth vector is established between the stable proximal mandible and the osteotomized posterior mandibular segment, guiding the osteotomized segment toward the glenoid fossa to cultivate a neo-condyle.82 Originated by Ilizarov in the 1950s for long bone defect reconstruction, this method was adapted for craniofacial applications in the 1990s, showcasing its versatility.83,84 DO can be categorized into elongation DO (EDO), which extends existing bone, and transport DO (TDO), which bridges segmental defects. The application of DO in RCU reconstruction offers several advantages: it allows precise control over the direction and magnitude of bone elongation, facilitating concurrent soft and hard tissue expansion; it obviates the need for bone grafting, thereby reducing donor site morbidity; and it enhances structural stability.85Stucki-McCormick initially reported the clinical use of extraoral TDO for RCU reconstruction in humans, marking a significant advancement in the field.85,86 The procedure involves a reverse-L osteotomy extending from the sigmoid notch to the posterior border of the mandible, performed either to release bony ankylosis or following tumor resection. An external transport distraction device is then affixed, facilitating the superior advancement of the segment by 1 to 2 mm daily until it aligns with the glenoid fossa (Fig. 6a). In cases where the articular disc is absent, a temporalis muscle and fascia flap often serve as interpositional materials to bridge the gap created by arthroplasty.87 Post-distraction, new cortical layer formation on the articular surface and the development of a pseudodisk have been observed, indicating the remodeling capabilities of the bone under distraction forces.86 Hikiji et al. further identified cartilaginous cells and subsequent ossification within the cartilaginous matrix on the transport disk’s upper surface in rat models, suggesting that these cells likely originate from undifferentiated mesenchymal cells in the bone marrow and internal periosteum, triggered by the trauma’s biological signals.88 The application of gap arthroplasty and extraoral TDO for TMJ reconstruction has since become prevalent for patients with TMJ ankylosis, including those with micrognathia, across both skeletally mature81,87,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98 and growing populations.99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108 This two-staged surgical approach has yielded substantial functional and esthetic improvements over 1–4 years of follow-up. However, the cutaneous scars from the extraoral distraction, often hypertrophic and conspicuous, prompted the exploration of intraoral TDO devices87,103,109 and single preauricular incision TDO94 as alternatives to minimize scarring. Recent studies also incorporate simultaneous genioplasty,93,98 and employ VSP and CAD/CAM surgical assistant system92,110,111 to further enhance facial esthetics and respiratory function, showcasing the evolution of TDO techniques in TMJR (Fig. 6b).Fig. 6Transport distraction osteogenesis used in TMJ reconstruction. a Scheme showing the process of Transport distraction osteogenesis to reconstruct TMJ.300 Copyright © 2008 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. b Scheme showing the process of virtual treatment planning, repositioning of bony segments by distraction osteogenesis and series of surgical templates used to transfer the virtual plan to actual surgery.111 Copyright © 2018 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeonsFull size imageA comparative study examining different TMJR grafts revealed no significant differences in mean mouth opening and excursive movements between the TDO and sternoclavicular graft groups. This finding was echoed in another randomized trial and meta-analysis, which demonstrated that RCU reconstruction using either CCG or TDO effectively forms a neocondyle, maintains occlusion, and corrects facial asymmetry.112,113 However, the TDO group exhibited significantly greater mean condylar resorption over the follow-up period.114 A more recent meta-analysis showed significant postoperative improvements in mouth opening in both the TDO and CCG groups, with the analysis favoring TDO for joint reconstruction. The incidence of postoperative re-ankylosis was up to 6.1% lower in the TDO group compared to the CCG group.115Notably, substantial relapse rates in the length of the corpus (25%) and the height of the RCU (26%–87%) post-distraction were reported by several researchers.97,116,117 A recent long-term follow-up study highlighted that while TDO offers stable short-term esthetic improvements within the first postoperative year, significant reductions in the reconstructed RCU and a 10% recurrence rate of TMJ ankylosis were observed 7–12 years post-surgery.118 This decrease in bone length may be attributed to remodeling processes at the gonion and pogonion, influenced by alterations in soft-tissue muscle pull dynamics on the mandible. To mitigate the risk of re-ankylosis post-gap arthroplasty and TDO, modifications in distraction devices have been explored. The introduction of the Matthews craniomandibular fixation device119 and dual distraction device120 reported successful maintenance of facial symmetry, with no instances of relapse or re-ankylosis during the follow-up period. These advancements underscore the continuous evolution of TMJR techniques, aiming to enhance long-term outcomes and patient satisfaction.The application of TDO in reconstructing the RCU has been posited to retain the growth potential of the regenerated ramus and condyle, allowing it to develop in harmony with the contralateral, untreated side. Studies have shown that the neo-condyle formed through TDO does not exhibit statistically significant differences when compared to the natural condyle on the non-operated side.6,99,100,103,105,106,107,108,112 Despite these promising findings, the postoperative growth potential in growing patients remains uncertain, with reports of varying degrees of facial deformity and unpredictable mandibular growth following TMJ arthroplasty.121,122 Xiao’s research further underscores this uncertainty, revealing a 16.7% increase in the mandibular asymmetry difference ratio post-TMJR using TDO in adolescent patients, indicating instability in the heights of reconstructed condyles over the long term and a tendency toward asymmetry.104 This raises critical questions about the appropriateness of simultaneously performing ankylosis release and mandibular distraction in patients without clear indicators of potential growth. It prompts a reconsideration of whether mandibular distraction osteogenesis should be staged as a secondary procedure following gap or interpositional arthroplasty to address residual asymmetry or retrognathism once skeletal maturity is reached.123 Further research is imperative to navigate these considerations and optimize treatment strategies for growing patients.Transition to alloplastic TMJRDevelopment of alloplastic TMJR devicesAutogenous grafts, while commonly employed, are associated with several disadvantages, including the necessity for an additional surgical site, donor site morbidity, the risk of graft over- or undergrowth, potential for graft fracture or resorption, and extended surgery duration.124 In contrast, alloplastic total joint replacement has been recognized as a promising strategy for managing unilateral or bilateral TMJ ankylosis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and idiopathic condylar resorption,125,126,127,128 offering an innovative alternative to conventional techniques. A 1-year follow-up comparative study found no significant difference in maximal interincisal opening between the prosthetic TMJR group and the CCR graft group. Similarly, changes in preoperative and postoperative pain scores were also insignificant between the groups.129 However, longer-term evidence indicated that patients treated with alloplastic TMJR experienced greater improvement and fewer complications compared to the CCR group. In addition, more patients in the autogenous group required reoperation.130,131 The complications in the alloplastic TMJR group were generally self-limited, including transient facial nerve weakness, temporary malocclusion, or pain during maximum opening. In contrast, the CCR group experienced issues such as re-ankylosis, overgrowth, malocclusion, and minor infections.131 A subsequent meta-analysis revealed a significant reduction in pain with alloplastic reconstruction compared to the CCR group.132 Another recent meta-analysis also suggested that interpositional gap arthroplasty using autogenous materials and reconstruction with either autogenous grafts or alloplastic prosthetic implants yielded comparable clinical outcomes in the management of TMJ ankylosis.130,133 In addition, finite element analyses have indicated that alloplastic TMJ prostheses distribute stress and strain evenly across the alloplastic and contralateral natural joints, minimizing adverse effects on the natural joint.134In 1965, Christensen pioneered the development of the first total TMJ implant, initially combining a Vitallium fossa with a standardized cast Vitallium ramus component featuring a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) condylar head, secured with cement.135 However, the application of PMMA cement was subsequently discontinued due to PMMA fragmentation under functional loading, which compromised the integrity of the prosthesis. In 1977, Momma introduced another approach, and subsequently, Kent developed a prosthetic design combining a metal condyle with a Teflon-coated glenoid fossa for TMJR.136 Nonetheless, this innovation faced setbacks when the FDA in the US retracted its approval and recommended the removal of these implants due to particle shedding and the ensuing foreign body giant cell (FBGC) reaction.6 This response exacerbated the deterioration of any autogenous graft materials in proximity to the failed Proplast-Teflon implants.137 The setbacks experienced with Kent’s Teflon-based implants paved the way for significant advancements in TMJR. Leveraging insights from long-bone joint replacements, the articulating Teflon layer was substituted with ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) in 1986.138 This marked a pivotal shift towards the use of titanium and Co–Cr–Mo alloys in combination with UHMWPE. These materials form the basis of most FDA-approved TMJR systems available today for patients with skeletal maturity. However, the success of these implants depends on the availability of adequate host bone for secure fixation and stabilization of the components.In 1989, LG Mercuri of TMJ Concepts pioneered the development of the first CAD/CAM patient-specific TMJR prosthesis, based on maxillofacial computed tomography scans. This custom approach received FDA investigational device approval in 1996 and was introduced for patient use in 1997.139 The TMJ Concepts system features a pure titanium mesh-backed UHMWPE fossa component and a ramus made of cp titanium or wrought Ti–6Al–4V alloy, with a Co–Cr–Mo condyle head and titanium alloy screws (Fig. 7a). This design aimed to mitigate the FBGC reactions associated with Proplast-Teflon implants and address issues of fit, fixation, and long-term stability inherent to stock implants.140 Following this, Zimmer Biomet introduced a custom TMJR device employing an all-UHMWPE fossa component, Co–Cr–Mo ramus and condyle components with plasma-sprayed titanium coating, and Ti–6Al–4V alloy screws, which has been FDA approved and demonstrated long-term clinical safety and effectiveness.141,142,143,144,145 Despite the inability of alloplastic TMJR to fully replicate natural TMJ function—as indicated by restricted mandibular movement,146 long-term studies have consistently showcased its effectiveness. In several retrospective 10-year follow-up studies, Rikhotso et al.,147 Rajkumar et al.,148 and Leandro et al.149 demonstrated that TMJ alloplasts provide satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes for patients with end-stage TMJ diseases. These studies highlighted significant improvements in patients with ankylosis, evidenced by enhanced maximum mouth opening, better chewing ability, improved quality of life, and reduced pain. Likewise, Gerbino et al. reported that TMJ reconstruction using both stock and custom-made devices resulted in improved occlusion and quality of life over a 12-year follow-up period. Their findings underline the long-term effectiveness and reliability of these reconstructive approaches in managing severe TMJ conditions.150 These studies have conclusively demonstrated the positive impact of alloplastic TMJR, highlighting significant decreases in chronic pain and substantial improvements in mandibular function, mouth opening, and quality of life post-treatment.149,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163Fig. 7Steps for fabrication of a custom alloplastic TMJ prosthesis and the development of current available commercial alloplastic TMJ prosthesis. a Steps for fabrication of a custom alloplastic TMJ prosthesis. Virtual preoperative position→Virtual condylectomy cuts to allow adequate space for the TMJR→Virtual final position producing acceptable facial profile→Printed STL model with initial design of custom alloplastic TMJ prosthesis→Custom alloplastic TMJ prosthesis device with manufacturer recommendations for screw length.297 Copyright © 2023 by the authors. b The development history of alloplastic TMJR devices and total replacement temporomandibular joints had been approved by FDAFull size imageBütow et al. and Hoffman initiated the development of a titanium nitride TMJ replacement system, which was introduced in 1994. This innovation involved treating both the fossa and condylar components with nitride to enhance material hardness and improve wear characteristics.164,165 Despite these advancements, the Hoffman TMJ replacement system did not secure FDA approval, leading to the cessation of its production. Concurrently, the Nexus CMF and TMJ Concept teams developed a metal-on-metal TMJR system featuring a Co–Cr alloy for the condylar head, ramus, and fossa. Early clinical trials of this system yielded promising results, demonstrating lower wear rates than metal-on-acrylic counterparts and satisfactory clinical outcomes, which facilitated FDA approval in 2001.166,167,168 Nevertheless, long-term follow-up studies revealed serious complications such as metallosis, osteolysis, and implant failure, prompting the FDA to revoke its approval in 2015 and halt production.169 This decision underscores the complexities of wear dynamics in TMJR systems, noting that total wear volume in metal-on-metal prostheses can be substantially lower than that observed in metal-on-UHMWPE implants170 (Table 2). To address this issue, the TMJ concept incorporates a secure attachment for the fossa’s articulating surface, which consists of UHMWPE bonded to a titanium base mesh. This design may reduce the potential for point contact between metals and subsequent wear. Several long-term investigations have demonstrated that this modified system continues to function effectively, with patients showing significant improvements in TMJ pain, jaw function, the ability to chew solid food, and quality of life.143,171 Moreover, the Groningen TMJ prosthesis, initially utilized as a stock device, which was subsequently developed in vitro and later applied clinically. This device features a UHMWPE disc placed between the zirconium condylar and the zirconium surface of the cranial prosthesis. However, an 8-year follow-up study revealed that while there was a significant decline in mandibular function impairment scores compared to baseline, the prosthesis had limited effects on maximum mouth opening, function, and pain.172 Consequently, metal-on-UHMWPE TMJR devices have become one of the most popular alloplastic TMJ systems.Table 2 The development history of alloplastic TMJR devices and total replacement temporomandibular joints currently being produced or developedFull size tableLimitations for alloplastic TMJRStock TMJR devices vs. customized TMJR devicesStock TMJR devices, while immediately accessible, present limitations regarding size and shape variability.173 These constraints necessitate adapting the patient’s anatomy to the prosthesis, particularly in individuals with a short ramus, posing potential challenges.174,175 To date, stock devices have demonstrated a survival rate of 96% at three years, 94% at five years, and 86% at ten years.142,176 In contrast, custom-designed TMJR devices, which constitute over 75% of the global production, have shown to offer benefits in terms of surgical efficiency and long-term quality of life improvements, based on subjective and objective outcomes over 20+ years.143,177,178 Custom TMJR devices are recommended as the standard of care in cases of significant anatomical deviations or substantial changes in mandibular position, such as those necessitating concurrent orthognathic surgery, or in patients with multiple prior surgeries.142,171,179,180,181 VSP has emerged as a reliable method for preoperative surgical planning and execution, enhancing accuracy and precision when utilizing custom TMJ prostheses.150,182,183,184 This approach aims to optimize surgical outcomes. Nevertheless, recent systematic reviews and clinical trials have revealed that both stock and custom TMJR devices significantly improve diet consistency and mouth opening, with no notable differences in outcomes between the two types.150,185,186,187,188,189,190Onoriobe et al. highlighted a 38% increase in alloplastic TMJR cases from 2005 to 2014.191 As of 2023, 19 countries have produced 37 TMJR devices, including 6 stock and 31 custom models, with 10 of these devices being produced through additive manufacturing. Among the three FDA-approved alloplastic TMJR systems (Fig. 7b), TMJ Concepts, Zimmer Biomet, and Nexus CMF—no comprehensive, well-designed controlled prospective studies have distinguished one system as superior. Only one study has suggested that Chinese standard TMJ prostheses offer comparable efficacy and stability to the Zimmer Biomet TMJR system.192 And in 2017, in a meta-analysis involving 242 studies,193 an evaluation was conducted on three commercially available, non-additive manufacturing fabricated TMJ implants, including the patient-tailored TMJ Concepts implant, the Nexus CMF system, and the stock and customized Biomet implants. The analysis revealed no significant differences in outcomes related to pain and dietary restrictions among the implants produced by these manufacturers. Nonetheless, these TMJ systems vary significantly in material composition, implant design, manufacturing methods, preclinical testing, regulatory approval status, and clinical outcome reporting.194 It is crucial, therefore, to ensure that all current and future TMJ protheses undergo rigorous scientific validation to guarantee their safety and effectiveness.Application in skeletally immature patientsThe prevailing consensus in reconstructive surgery has traditionally favored autogenous materials for pediatric cases and alloplastic materials for adults. By ensuring that the facial skeleton has largely completed its growth, this age-specific approach minimizes the risk of ongoing skeletal changes compromising the effectiveness and longevity of the reconstruction. However, given the potential complications associated with autogenous grafts in children—such as interference with growth—and the documented success of alloplastic TMJ prostheses, it is becoming increasingly reasonable to explore alloplastic reconstruction in select pediatric populations.122,195,196,197 To mitigate concerns related to growth interference and other complications, several strategies could be conducted. These include comprehensive preoperative planning and customization, multidisciplinary collaboration, precise prosthesis design and positioning, meticulous surgical methods, and the application of interposition spacer materials. Moreover, it is also necessary and important for postoperative monitoring with regular follow-up. Ensuring accurate placement of the prosthesis is essential for maintaining joint biomechanics and balancing the tension between the reconstructed joint and the surrounding structures, such as the maxilla.198Several studies have suggested that the use of alloplastic materials in skeletally immature patients does not adversely affect mandibular growth or the patient’s ability to achieve improved maximum incisal opening following bilateral or unilateral TMJR implantation.195,197,199,200 Among these studies, Douglas utilized alloplastic total TMJ reconstruction for two 4-year-old children with ankylosis and followed them for more than 8 years.197 Similarly, Keyser conducted a pilot survey on the application of alloplastic TMJR for 14 growing patients with follow-ups extending up to 10 years.195 The results of these studies showed that none of the alloplastic joints required replacement or explanation. In addition, following alloplastic joint replacement, mandibular growth continued and was not entirely halted. There was a consistent and substantial improvement in MIO over the long term, accompanied by improvements in overall mandibular functions such as speech and mastication. A recent systematic review summarized the current application of alloplastic TMJR in skeletally immature patients. It included a total of 73 skeletally immature patients from 7 countries who underwent total alloplastic TMJR.198 The review indicated that all patients had undergone multiple surgeries before the application of alloplastic total TMJ reconstruction. The included studies demonstrated significant enhancement in MIO and improvements in mandibular function during follow-up.These findings suggest that alloplastic TMJ reconstruction can be a viable and effective option for pediatric patients, offering long-term benefits in joint function and overall quality of life. Despite this, half of the patients had less than three years of follow-up, highlighting the necessity for further long-term clinical research into the benefits of alloplastic TMJ prostheses in pediatric populations. In summary, the use of alloplastic TMJR is a controversial treatment option for skeletal immature patients and might be recommended only in the most difficult cases. This method may be reserved for treating refractory ankylosis or following multiple unsuccessful attempts to repair the ankylosed joint. It is important to note that many children with TMJ ankylosis already lack the mandibular growth potential seen in children without the condition. Ideally, the placement of alloplastic TMJR should be delayed until late adolescence or adulthood to ensure that the majority of the patient’s skeletal growth is complete.Postoperative complications of alloplastic TMJRAlloplastic TMJR, while beneficial, is not devoid of risks. Short-term complications may include facial nerve weakness, infection, metal hypersensitivity, and postoperative malocclusion. Long-term challenges encompass implant instability, loosening of screws, relapse of TMJ ankylosis, and unresolved functional deficits, potentially necessitating device revision or replacement.6,154,181,201,202Facial nerve injuryFacial nerve weakness is the most common complication associated with TMJR, with manifestations ranging from paresis and paralysis (7.8%) to sensory alterations (1.8%).189 The proximity of the surgical site for TMJR installation to vital structures and the prolonged retraction of tissues, which may stretch and temporarily impact nerve function, likely contribute to these outcomes.147,153,177,178,185,190,203,204,205,206,207,208,209 In most studies, transient weakness of the temporal, buccal, and marginal mandibular branches of the facial nerve is observed immediately postoperatively and typically resolves within six months.147,210 A Although a minority of patients experience persistent paralysis of the temporal branch necessitating a unilateral brow lift, the risk of permanent facial nerve damage remains very low.147,207 Further investigations have identified relatively predictable factors that increase the risk of temporary facial nerve injury, including revision TMJ replacement, bilateral surgery, and multiple open TMJ procedures. In contrast, the risk factors for permanent injury are less predictable but are likely similar.211 Larger clinical studies are needed to elucidate specific risk factors definitively.We advocate for the routine identification of facial nerve branches in the operative field. This practice not only guides the dissection process but also ensures that the nerve’s anatomical integrity is confirmed by the end of the surgery, offering reassurance to both patient and physician in cases of postoperative facial nerve dysfunction. Careful dissection along fascial planes is essential to prevent nerve injury. Extreme caution must be exercised during nerve dissection, particularly in revision surgeries where scar tissue may obscure visualization and increase the risk of nerve damage. The preauricular approach has been reported to provide better access with a reduced risk of facial nerve injury.147 Notably, the most frequent surgical procedures associated with facial nerve injury are oral and maxillofacial surgeries, especially TMJ replacement operations, which account for 40% of such injuries.212 In addition, the application of low-intensity laser therapy, particularly when augmented with vitamin complex medication, has demonstrated efficacy in mitigating these effects.189InfectionThe incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) following TMJR is relatively low (0.7%).189 However, when SSI do occur, the clinical and economic consequences can be significant. These infections may arise through hematogenous spread or localized introduction during surgery,145,154,177,178,204,213,214,215,216,217 and can manifest over a mean period of 6 months postoperatively, with a range of 2 weeks to 12 years. Several host comorbidities have been reported and should be assessed and managed preoperatively to reduce the risk of SSI. These factors include metabolic diseases (e.g., diabetes), high inflammatory arthritis, anxiety and depression, use of immunosuppressive medications, malnutrition, cardiac and pulmonary diseases, anemia, and HIV/AIDS. In addition, nicotine use (with cessation recommended 4 to 6 weeks before surgery), alcohol and drug abuse are also significant factors.218It is noteworthy that a recent retrospective study spanning over 20 years found that the most commonly cultured organisms in prosthetic joint infections (PJI) of the TMJ were Staphylococcus aureus (53%), with Propionibacterium acnes colonization noted in 33% of cases.219 Consequently, several key strategies can be applied to prevent SSI and PJI. These include reducing patients’ bacterial burden through antimicrobial photo-disinfection therapy combined with chlorhexidine gluconate body wipes,220 administering prophylactic antibiotics (1st- or 2nd-generation cephalosporins were recommended) one hour prior to surgery,221 developing innovative coatings to confer potential antibacterial activity on the TMJ implant surfaces,222,223 and establishing an optimal surgical environment by implementing routine preoperative bathing, avoiding preoperative hair removal, and soaking prosthetic components in antibiotic solutions.221,224Prevention remains the most effective strategy; however, making a timely and accurate diagnosis of PJI is crucial for successful and targeted management. It could be challenging to distinguish a PJI from an adverse local tissue reaction to particulate wear without the presence of purulence.225 Culture-negative PJI infections occur in 27% to 55% of cases, often due to biofilms that are not easily identified with conventional culture methods. To enhance culture yield, it is recommended to withhold antibiotics before taking culture samples, culture synovial fluid in blood culture bottles, and extend the culture duration.226 The latter is particularly relevant when dealing with Propionibacterium acnes PJI.227 Recently, emerging techniques such as the leukocyte esterase test,228 diagnostic tests for interleukin 6,229 Alpha-defensin230 and Serum D-dimer,231 and next-generation sequencing232 have shown high sensitivity and specificity and are becoming feasible in clinical settings.A 7–10 day course of oral antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended as a postoperative intervention following TMJR, due to the surgical wounds’ proximity to potential contamination sources such as the ear, parotid gland, and oral cavity.218 Effective management strategies include the early administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics and surgical intervention for drainage, ideally within five days of symptom onset. In cases where infection persists, reconstruction with a new prosthesis, accompanied by an autogenous fat graft around the implant site, is recommended after a period of 8–10 weeks, if deemed necessary.216 In addition, because the condylar component ramus fixation screws are positioned in the pterygomandibular space and may become contaminated during the administration of inferior alveolar nerve anesthesia, prophylactic antibiotics are recommended for patients undergoing inferior alveolar nerve blocks.224Metal hypersensitivityMetal hypersensitivity can develop at any age and has a significantly higher incidence in females.233 Chronic exposure to low concentrations of metal ions or particles, or acute exposure to high concentrations from dissolution, corrosion, or wear, can induce metal hypersensitivity.234 Metal wear debris acts as haptens, triggering allergic sensitization through processing by antigen-presenting cells. Notably, while metal-on-metal TMJ prostheses exhibit reduced wear, they are associated with a higher incidence of metal hypersensitivity compared to metal-on-UHMWPE systems. Current estimates indicate that approximately 10% to 15% of the population may exhibit an allergy to one or more metals commonly used in implantology.235,236 Symptoms of hypersensitivity reactions can range from local (such as skin dermatitis and erythema) to systemic effects (including neurological or gastrointestinal issues).139 Common cutaneous reactions associated with metallic implants include vasculitis, dermatitis, eczema, and occasionally urticaria. In certain cases, these local reactions can cause the implant to loosen, ultimately leading to failure.237Metallic biomaterials, including Co–Cr and Ti alloys, are generally biocompatible due to the formation of protective oxides like Cr2O3 (in Co–Cr alloys) or TiO2 (in Ti alloys). Patients with documented hypersensitivity to Co–Cr–Mo alloy who require TMJ replacement have been reported to experience significant improvements in jaw function, diet, TMJ pain, jaw opening, headaches, disability, and quality of life when the mandibular components are made from all-Ti alloy.238 However, trace elements such as Nickel (Ni), Aluminum (Al), Vanadium (V), and Titanium (Ti) may also elicit allergic reactions.236 To mitigate allergic reactions and reduce the potential risk of initial prosthesis rejection, pre-implantation screening via skin patch tests or lymphocyte transformation tests is recommended,139,236,239 particularly for patients with a history of intolerance to jewelry, belt buckles, watches, or a prior metal implant. The lymphocyte transformation test measures lymphocyte proliferation in the presence and absence of a metal ion stimulus when cultured with peripheral blood lymphocytes. Researchers have used lymphocyte transformation tests to assess patients with symptomatic orthopedic implants who had negative skin patch tests, thereby identifying patients who might benefit from implant removal.240,241 Despite the availability of laboratory tests to evaluate patients for potential metal allergy, no consensus was obtained on the optimal timing or specific clinical situations for evaluating patients for metal allergy or hypersensitivity.In cases of positive hypersensitivity, the use of an allergen-free prosthesis is advised. For patients displaying hypersensitivity symptoms postoperatively, initial conservative management is recommended. To alleviate hypersensitivity symptoms, the use of antihistamines and short-term courses of topical or systemic corticosteroids is usually recommended.242 If this approach is unsuccessful, a lymphocyte transformation test should be conducted. A positive test result mandates prosthesis replacement, while a negative result calls for ongoing observation to determine whether prosthesis retention or removal is appropriate.243Heterotopic ossificationHeterotopic ossification (HO), as detailed in orthopedic literature, denotes the aberrant formation of ectopic bone within soft tissues or joints.244 HO is classified into two primary types: acquired and hereditary. Acquired HO, the more common variant, is associated with diverse etiological factors including trauma, fractures, surgical interventions, soft tissue damage, burns, infections, arthritis, and neurogenic injuries.245 Particularly in the context of alloplastic TMRJ for managing TMJ ankylosis, recurrent acquired HO (1%) and re-ankylosis pose significant challenges,145,148,178,185,187,217 potentially leading to pain and restricted mandibular function.246,247Recent advances have highlighted the efficacy of abdominal fat grafting in obliterating dead space and preserving adequate space for TMJR, alongside perioperative radiation, in mitigating the risk of heterotopic bone formation.218,246,248,249 In addition, the critical role of outpatient follow-up with daily physical therapy for at least six months cannot be overstated, as it is pivotal in promoting mandibular mobility.247 In instances where HO is diagnosed, surgical exploration and debridement of the heterotopic bone are recommended as effective interventions.246,247,250Prosthesis dislocationDislocation of the prosthesis is a noted complication in TMJR, as observed in five studies.203,206,209,251 Particularly, the TMJ prothesis is susceptible to dislocation, primarily within the initial six weeks postoperatively.251 Contributing factors to prosthesis dislocation include insufficient muscular stability, sectioning of the pterygomasseteric sling, inadequate adaptation of prosthetic components, and removal of the coronoid process. Anterior dislocation occurs due to incorrect positioning of the condyle/fossa component and can result from releasing the masticatory muscles and simultaneous coronoidectomy.209,252Misalignment of the stock condyle in the center of the fossa can lead to posterior displacement, causing impingement on the tympanic plate or auditory canal, resulting in pain, mandibular dysfunction, and potential infection due to pressure-related perforation.253 Conversely, the custom-made prostheses often incorporate a posterior stop on the fossa component to prevent posterior displacement of the condyle component, alleviating this concern. However, this preventive feature may be absent in some stock prostheses, increasing the risk of the condyle component displacing posteriorly if not precisely centered within the fossa.253Post-surgical dislocation necessitates prompt intervention, typically involving physiotherapy and the application of intermaxillary elastics to stabilize the prosthesis for at least one week. Early postoperative dislocations can often be resolved by repositioning the ramus component followed by intermaxillary elastics.206,209,252 However, in certain cases, repositioning under general anesthesia or light sedation may be required to address the dislocation effectively.209The future of alloplastic TMJREmerging materials in TMJ reconstructionCo–Cr alloysCo–Cr alloys have historically been favored in the manufacture of load-bearing total joint implants, including TMJR devices. This preference is attributed to their combination of high strength, superior wear and fatigue resistance, and notable biocompatibility, the latter of which is largely due to a passivating chromium oxide layer.143,253 Subsequent developments led to the introduction of a wrought ASTM F1537 Co–Cr–Mo alloy, with compositions ranging from 58.9 to 69.5 wt% Co, 27.0 to 30.0 wt% Cr, 5.0 to 7.0 wt% Mo, and up to 1 wt% Ni. This alloy, boasting enhanced mechanical properties and wear resistance, received FDA approval for use in TMJR devices.141,187 However, the presence of residual Ni has raised concerns regarding material hypersensitivity, and the animal studies conducted by McGregor et al. have suggested carcinogenic potential associated with metallic Co and Co alloys.239,254In response to these concerns, research efforts have pivoted towards developing Co- and Ni-free alloys that maintain comparable biological and bioengineering characteristics. Initial studies identified Fe24Cr2MoN, a high nitrogen nickel-free austenitic stainless steel, as a potential alternative.255,256 Despite its promising attributes, this material demonstrated susceptibility to wear, pitting, and fretting corrosion in simulated body fluid environments, leading to concerns over material integrity and the release of corrosion products.257 A breakthrough came with Radice et al.’s investigation into a novel nickel-free high nitrogen stainless steel variant, Fe18Cr14Mn3.5MoN0.9. This new composition exhibited significantly higher corrosion resistance in comparison to its predecessors under analogous bovine serum testing conditions,258 marking a significant advance in the search for safer, more durable materials for TMJR devices.Titanium alloysCo–Cr–Mo alloys have historically been the cornerstone in the development of load-bearing joint implants due to their robust mechanical properties and biocompatibility. However, escalating concerns regarding the stress shielding effects and potential toxicity associated with Co–Cr alloys have catalyzed the shift towards Ti alloys in TMJR applications.139,238 The superior passivating ability of the titanium oxide layer significantly reduces metal ion release compared to its Co–Cr and stainless-steel counterparts, thereby minimizing adverse tissue reactions.170,253 This attribute has made Ti alloys particularly beneficial for patients with known hypersensitivity to Co–Cr–Mo, with reported improvements in TMJ pain, functionality, and overall quality of life following treatment with Ti-based TMJR devices. Among the Ti materials, commercially pure titanium (Cp Ti, 98.8 wt%–99.6 wt% Ti) and Ti–6Al–4V (89.0 wt%–91.0 wt% Ti, 5.5 wt%–6.5 wt% Al, and 3.5 wt%–4.5 wt% V) are predominant, both receiving FDA approval for use in TMJR due to their optimal blend of biocompatibility and mechanical strength.259 Ti–6Al–4V, an alloy containing both α- and β-phases, is known for its enhanced tensile and fatigue strength, attributable to thermomechanical processing.170 Conversely, Cp Ti, composed solely of the α-phase, exhibits lower mechanical strength but boasts superior corrosion resistance due to the lack of alloying elements in its protective oxide layer, rendering it highly biocompatible.235While Ti–6Al–4V has been a predominant alloy in TMJR owing to its excellent mechanical properties and biocompatibility, concerns regarding the long-term release of aluminum and vanadium—and their potential to induce hypersensitivity—have prompted research into alternative titanium alloys.260 This has led to the development of novel beta-Ti alloys,261 such as Ti-Zr-Mo-Fe and Ti-Nb-Zr-Ta, which incorporate nontoxic elements like tin (Sn), zirconium (Zr), tantalum (Ta), molybdenum (Mo), and niobium (Nb) to achieve similar or superior mechanical and clinical properties.170,259,262 These innovative beta-Ti alloys are heralded for their lower elastic modulus, which theoretically reduces stress shielding at the implant-bone interface—a critical factor in the longevity and success of an implant. The inclusion of elements like Nb, Zr, and Ta not only contributes to this reduced modulus but also facilitates the formation of more stable and protective oxide layers (e.g., Nb2O5, ZrO2, or Ta2O5), enhancing the corrosion resistance and biocompatibility of the implants.262Despite the promising characteristics of beta-Ti alloys in TMJR applications, their comparatively lower fatigue strength relative to Ti–6Al–4V has raised concerns regarding their suitability for articulating joint surfaces.139,262 This limitation underscores the need for alloy modification to enhance mechanical robustness while maintaining or improving biocompatibility. Recent advancements have demonstrated that targeted modifications, such as laser gas alloying with nitrogen and the incorporation of iron (Fe) and silicon (Si) into the beta-Ti alloy matrix (e.g., Ti-35Nb-7Zr-6Ta-2Fe-0.5Si), can significantly bolster both mechanical and biological properties of these materials.262,263 Furthermore, the interface between TMJR devices and UHMWPE components has been a focal point for reducing wear and enhancing corrosion resistance. Studies have shown that diamond-like carbon (DLC)-coated stainless steel and titanium, when paired with UHMWPE, exhibit markedly reduced wear and superior corrosion resistance compared to their uncoated counterparts.264,265,266PolyethyleneDespite recent advancements in the development of Ti alloys, their mismatch in elastic modulus with bone tissue continues to pose significant challenges in orthopedic applications. This limitation has spurred interest in non-metallic fiber-reinforced composites as potential alternatives for load-bearing implants, offering a closer match to bone’s mechanical properties.267 Since its initial application in orthopedic surgery in 1962, UHMWPE has emerged as the predominant bearing surface material in total joint replacement devices.268 Characterized by its linear, unbranched structure, high molecular weight, and substantial crystallinity, UHMWPE offers enhanced wear resistance and reduced friction coefficients when comparing to other polymers such as high-density polyethylene, polymethyl methacrylate, and polytetrafluoroethylene.269 Over five decades, advancements have culminated in the development of high-grade cross-linked UHMWPEs, marking a significant improvement in wear resistance and wear rates over earlier formulations.270 Recent studies report success rates ranging from 84% to 91% for TMJR employing UHMWPE fossa, highlighting its efficacy and durability in clinical applications.141,149Initial apprehensions regarding the use of UHMWPE in tibial liners centered on potential embrittlement and an increased fracture risk. However, the functional loads exerted on knee and hip prostheses significantly surpass those on the TMJ, substantially mitigating concerns about polyethylene wear and fracture risks in TMJR.271,272 Notably, Wolford’s studies revealed that cases using metal-on-metal TMJ devices showed markedly higher systemic levels of Cr and Co, alongside a greater prevalence of metal hypersensitivity, compared to those with metal-on-UHMWPE prostheses.234 Despite the increased wear observed with metal-on-UHMWPE implants relative to metal-on-metal prostheses employing Co–Cr–Mo alloys, this issue can be effectively managed by augmenting the thickness of the articulating surface, as demonstrated by the Biomet TMJ prosthesis, which features a minimum UHMWPE fossa thickness of 4 mm.149 Nonetheless, long-term follow-ups identified potential issues such as creep269 and shelf aging273 with UHMWPE in TMJR, potentially leading to increased micromotion and eventual device failure. These challenges have been partially addressed by integrating vitamin E into UHMWPE or blending α-tocopherol, enhancing the mechanical strength and reducing deterioration of the material, thereby presenting a promising avenue for improving the longevity and performance of TMJR devices.187,273Investigations into ceramics such as Al2O3 and ZrO2,274 polyetheretherketone (PEEK)275 and DLC259 have expanded the repertoire of materials considered for bearing surfaces in hip and knee total joint replacement systems. Among these, ceramic materials, notable for their superior tribological performance, offer significant advantages over metals and polymers. Specifically, zirconia-toughened alumina (ZTA) composites, which combine Al2O3 in the primary phase (70–95%) with ZrO2 in the subsequent phase (5–30%), have been highlighted for their exceptional aging and wear resistance. The integration of ZrO2 not only preserves the inherent strengths of the Al2O3 matrix but also enhances the composite’s strength and fracture toughness.276 Recent advancements in ZTA materials, featuring a nano-sized microstructure, have demonstrated limited wear damage and outstanding crack resistance in hip simulators, suggesting their potential suitability as articulating bearing surfaces in TMJR systems.277 Conversely, studies indicate that PEEK and carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK exhibit significantly higher wear rates than UHMWPE, casting doubts on their viability as bearing surfaces for TMJR systems.278,279 Despite these advancements, the scarcity of data within the craniomaxillofacial surgery domain underscores a critical need for further research and development. This endeavor is crucial to ensure the safety and efficacy of new materials in TMJR applications, thus calling for a concerted effort to fill this gap in our current understanding.Additive manufacturing techniques used in TMJ reconstructionRecent advancements in additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, have notably enhanced the production of TMJR devices. These advancements offer several benefits, including improved metal porosity and expedited production timelines. AM refers to creating three-dimensional objects by sequentially adding material in layers,280 which primarily employs metal powder bed fusion (PBF) techniques for the fabrication of TMJR, including selective laser sintering, selective laser melting, direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), and electron beam melting. These techniques have been shown to provide superior mechanical properties and biocompatibility for TMJR281 (Fig. 8a, b). Specifically, PBF processes involve melting or sintering powder layers using a focused energy source, such as an electron or laser beam, facilitating the creation of complex structures characterized by high precision and optimal porosity. This approach offers unparalleled design flexibility, enabling the production of complex, patient-specific structures that precisely conform to an individual’s mandible, free from the limitations of conventional tooling.282 Moreover, AM enables the fabrication of porous TMJ implants with meticulously controlled pore sizes, porosity levels, and interconnectivity (Fig. 9a). This design feature promotes bone ingrowth and enhances drug delivery while ensuring optimal permeability and diffusivity283 (Fig. 9b). The technology also allows for the integration of components with varying mechanical properties within a single implant structure. The mechanical characteristics can be precisely modified through topological optimization of the porous structure to closely resemble the replaced bone, thus minimizing the risk of stress shielding.284Fig. 8Additive manufacturing technologies used for Ti-based biomaterials for bone substitution. a Laser and ultrasonic multi-material AM for metals according to the process classifications of ASTM F2792-12a. b Adhesive multi-material AM for metals according to the process classifications of ASTM F2792-12a.281 Copyright © 2020 The AuthorsFull size imageFig. 9Additive manufacturing technologies used for porous-surfaced titanium plates. a Scanning electron microscopy images of the cross section of the inner strut of porous titanium-surfaced plate. b Non-decalcified histologic sections of porous-surfaced titanium plates implanted into rabbit tibia. Stain: Stevenel’s blue and Van Gieson’s picrofuchsin. Purple indicates bone; silver indicates the titanium implant. *: marrow-like tissue spreading into porous area. Scale bars: 1 mm.283 Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.VFull size imageAM has emerged as a particularly advantageous method for crafting patient-specific medical devices, such as TMJ implants. This preference stems from AM’s flexibility in producing single or small batches of items, making it ideally suited for custom-designed medical implants tailored to individual patients’ anatomical requirements. Such precision ensures a near-perfect fit, significantly enhancing the effectiveness of TMJ reconstruction.285,286,287,288,289 The transformative potential of AM in the medical field was starkly illustrated in 2012 with the first clinical application of an AM-produced TMJ implant, which involved the complete replacement of a patient’s lower jawbone290 (Fig. 10a). This landmark procedure underscored AM’s capability to produce highly complex, anatomically precise implants. Currently, ~27% of TMJR devices produced globally incorporate components manufactured via additive processes, reflecting the growing recognition of AM’s value in this domain.268 The primary benefits of AM for custom TMJ prostheses, as corroborated by multiple studies, include the production of implants that provide a secure and comfortable fit (Fig. 10b–e). This is achieved through AM’s ability to fabricate devices that accurately conform to the unique contours of a patient’s mandible, offering an alternative to one-size-fits-all solutions. In addition, AM’s capacity to rapidly transform intricate designs into physical products at a reasonable cost has been highlighted as a significant advantage.291,292 A noteworthy study that compared AM with traditional manufacturing techniques for TMJ implants found no statistical difference in functional outcomes post-surgery, affirming the safety and efficacy of AM-fabricated devices.289 An in vitro study compared 3D-printed titanium (3D-Ti) plates with standard Synthes-Ti plates. The results demonstrated that 3D-Ti plates offer similar biocompatibility and stability for rigid internal fixation, while also exhibiting lower surface roughness, superior mechanical strength, and a higher bone–plate contact rate.293 Moreover, A recent systematic review and meta-analysis compared the mechanical and biological properties of resin materials, including PEEK, used in AM techniques for fabricating oral appliances, with those of conventionally manufactured materials. The results demonstrated that 3D-printed prothesis exhibited satisfactory mechanical performance compared to conventional approach.294 This finding reinforces the position of AM as a viable and promising approach to produce TMJR devices, potentially revolutionizing patient-specific treatment strategies.Fig. 10Current applied additive manufacturing TMJ prothesis. a The first patient-specific entire lower jaw AM replacement.290 Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. b Virtual model of a customized AM implant made using a CAD system (Left). Customized TMJ implants made of a titanium alloy and fabricated by using AM (DMLS), showing holes for fixing screws and for muscle attachments (Right).289 Copyright © 2017 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. c Melbourne prosthetic TMJ and Biomet Microfixation prosthetic TMJ developed by the researchers of the University of Melbourne and used in the study of Ackland et al.285 Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. d The TMJ prosthetic total joint replacement system developed by OMX Solutions and used in the study of Dimitroulis et al. The 3 d printing TMJ prosthetic total joint replacement system is composed of an Ultra-high molecular weight Polyethylene Fossa and a Titanium Alloy condylar ramus unit (left) that are secured to the bone with titanium alloy screws (right).287 Copyright © 2018 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. e The processing of the new TMJ prosthesis used in the study of Zheng et al., including the pre-processing for the craniomaxillofacial model, the design for the prosthesis, and the manufacture for the prosthesis.291 Copyright © The Author(s) 2019Full size imageDespite the considerable advantages offered by AM in producing patient-specific TMJR devices, several technical challenges inherent to the process warrant attention.295 These challenges include deformation, warping, and cracking of the final product, which may be primarily attributed to the differential melting and cooling mechanisms characteristic of AM. These issues arise from significant heat transfer, rapid cooling rates, and potentially suboptimal manufacturing parameters prevalent in 3D printing processes. Consequently, 3D-printed alloys are often reported to possess inferior corrosion resistance when compared to their wrought counterparts.296 In addition to these technical hurdles, AM faces other limitations that can impact its broader adoption for medical applications. These include constraints on part sizes, subpar surface finishes, the high cost of certain AM machinery, the necessity for specialized software—which may incur additional expenses—and the limited availability of suitable starting materials.280 While these challenges pertain mostly to the manufacturing process itself, it’s imperative to acknowledge that the clinical efficacy and benefits of AM-fabricated TMJ prostheses remain underexplored in the current literatures. Currently, the field of metal AM, particularly for TMJR applications, is still evolving. A deeper understanding of the interplay between processing conditions, microstructure, and material properties is crucial for advancing this technology.268 The current state of knowledge underscores the necessity for further clinical research to substantiate the superiority of AM over conventional manufacturing techniques for TMJR devices. More comprehensive clinical outcome data are essential to conclusively demonstrate the efficacy and reliability of AM in this context.ConclusionReconstruction of the TMJ represents a niche yet profoundly impactful challenge within the realm of head and neck surgery, significantly affecting patients’ functionality and quality of life. Due to its infrequent occurrence and the complex etiology encompassing trauma, degeneration, and congenital defects, TMJ reconstruction lacks a unified approach, resulting in considerable variability in clinical practice. Current methods for TMJR range from autologous grafting to alloplastic joint replacement, each offering distinct advantages and limitations based on the specific patient situations. This variability emphasizes the urgent necessity for establishing a consensus on the most effective reconstruction strategies to meet the distinct requirements of individual cases.In the author’s opinion, alloplastic joint replacement, particularly custom alloplastic TMJR, has become the preferred method and is increasingly regarded as the gold standard for reconstructing end-stage TMJ disorders, especially in skeletally mature patients. Current prostheses now have up to 20 years of follow-up data, demonstrating favorable short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes. However, it remains uncertain whether these outcomes will be sustained beyond 20 years. Advances in the design and materials of TMJ prostheses, such as the use of biocompatible materials, have further minimized the risk of rejection and complications, enhancing both the longevity and functionality of the joint replacement. Although the initial work-up for these prostheses, including 3D CT scans and models, is more extensive, the benefits—such as reduced operative time, shorter hospital stays, and fewer secondary donor site complications—far outweigh the initial cost of the prosthesis. For TMJ reconstruction in pediatric patients, however, CCG remains the preferred option due to its growth potential. Successful free grafting depends on a well-vascularized bed, and scarred tissue, with reduced vascularity, may compromise graft viability. DO and vascularized free flaps are typically considered in revision surgeries when the soft tissues fail to provide an adequate vascular bed for non-vascularized tissue transfers.Currently, UHMWPE remains the ‘gold standard’ bearing surface for orthopedic joint replacement devices, particularly in hip and knee replacements. For major components of orthopedic and dental replacement devices, Ti6AL4V alloy is the preferred metal due to its biocompatibility and excellent bio-integration. However, despite its high strength and corrosion resistance, studies have detected titanium wear particles and ions in local peri-implant tissues as well as in distant organs. To address some of the drawbacks of titanium, advanced technologies like CAD/CAM, 3D printing, and VSP have revolutionized TMJ reconstruction. These technologies enable the production of custom-fitted prostheses that precisely match individual patient anatomy, leading to improved surgical accuracy, shorter recovery times, and higher patient satisfaction. Future developments in TMJR devices must focus on ensuring that compounds or coatings designed to combat biofilm formation are properly applied to surfaces to prevent wear over time, while also ensuring the effective delivery of anti-biofilm agents. As 3D printing continues to evolve, the production of TMJR systems may become more efficient and cost-effective.Despite notable advancements in TMJR through alloplastic prostheses, challenges persist that are worth attention. Among these considerations, the necessity for comprehensive long-term studies is particularly pronounced, especially aimed at clarifying outcomes for pediatric patients. The intrinsic growth dynamics of pediatric patients bring complex variables into both the integration and long-term performance of alloplastic prostheses. Moreover, there is a pressing need for innovation in surgical methodologies and AM of biomaterials to minimize complications and expedite recovery. Ongoing investigations are crucial to address these challenges, with a continued focus on improving the quality of life for patients with end-stage TMJ disorders. At this stage, aside from the initial costs, there appears to be little justification for considering alternative forms of reconstruction in adults. However, the development of custom-made cartilage grafts using stem cells may represent the future of joint reconstruction across various types.In summary, the field of TMJ reconstruction has witnessed remarkable progress, moving towards more reliable, less invasive, and more patient-specific treatments. The future of TMJ reconstruction lies in the refinement of these innovative technologies and methods, along with a deeper understanding of the TMJ’s biological and mechanical behaviors and its pathological conditions. Current reconstructive techniques favor autogenous replacements in children and alloplastic replacements in adults. However, the trend is gradually shifting towards the use of alloplastic TMJR in older children. The integration of advanced materials, personalized prosthetics, and cutting-edge manufacturing techniques will continue to drive the field forward, addressing both current challenges and future needs in TMJ reconstruction.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
ReferencesElledge, R., Mercuri, L. G., Attard, A., Green, J. & Speculand, B. Review of emerging temporomandibular joint total joint replacement systems. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 57, 722–728 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mamidi, S. K. et al. Advancements in temporomandibular joint total joint replacements (TMJR). Biomed. Eng. Lett. 9, 169–179 (2019).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Gauer, R. L. & Semidey, M. J. Diagnosis and treatment of temporomandibular disorders. Am. Fam. Physician 91, 378–386 (2015).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mercuri, L. A heuristic approach to the management of Muscle-related temporomandibular disorders. Fac. Dent. J. 4, 112–117 (2013).
Google Scholar
Ng, C. H., Lai, J. B., Victor, F. & Yeo, J. F. Temporomandibular articular disorders can be alleviated with surgery. Evid. Based Dent. 6, 48–50 (2005).PubMed
Google Scholar
Imola, M. J. & Liddell, A. Temporomandibular joint reconstruction. Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol. Head. Neck Surg. 24, 336–342 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Charnley, J. The classic: the bonding of prostheses to bone by cement. 1964. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 468, 3149–3159 (2010).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Lexer, E. Substitution of whole or half joints from freshly amputated extremities by free plastic operation. Surg. Gynec. Obstet. 6, 601–607 (1908).
Google Scholar
Gilles, H. D. Plastic Surgery of the Face (1920).Kaban, L. B., Bouchard, C. & Troulis, M. J. A protocol for management of temporomandibular joint ankylosis in children. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 67, 1966–1978 (2009).PubMed
Google Scholar
Perrott, D. H., Umeda, H. & Kaban, L. B. Costochondral graft construction/reconstruction of the ramus/condyle unit: long-term follow-up. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 23, 321–328 (1994).PubMed
Google Scholar
Sekhoto, M. G., Rikhotso, R. E. & Rajendran, S. Management of unpredictable outcomes of costochondral grafts. Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 62, 144–149 (2019).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Wadde, K. R., Nadkarni, S. & Mathai, P. Long term complications of costochondral graft reconstruction in temporomandibular joint ankylosis of the young—a systematic review. J. Stomatol Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 124, 101437 (2023).PubMed
Google Scholar
MacIntosh, R. B. The use of autogenous tissues for temporomandibular joint reconstruction. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 58, 63–69 (2000).PubMed
Google Scholar
Poswillo, D. E. Biological reconstruction of the mandibular condyle. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 25, 100–104 (1987).PubMed
Google Scholar
Saeed, N. R. & Kent, J. N. A retrospective study of the costochondral graft in TMJ reconstruction. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 32, 606–609 (2003).PubMed
Google Scholar
Baek, R. M. & Song, Y. T. Overgrowth of a costochondral graft in reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint. Scand. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Hand Surg. 40, 179–185 (2006).PubMed
Google Scholar
Guyuron, B. & Lasa, J. C. I. Unpredictable growth pattern of costochondral graft. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 90, 880–886 (1992).PubMed
Google Scholar
Medra, A. M. Follow up of mandibular costochondral grafts after release of ankylosis of the temporomandibular joints. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 43, 118–122 (2005).PubMed
Google Scholar
Yang, S. et al. Overgrowth of costochondral grafts in craniomaxillofacial reconstruction: Rare complication and literature review. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 43, 803–812 (2015).PubMed
Google Scholar
Siavosh, S. & Ali, M. Overgrowth of a costochondral graft in a case of temporomandibular joint ankylosis. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 18, 1488–1491 (2007).
Google Scholar
Balaji, S. M. & Balaji, P. Overgrowth of costochondral graft in temporomandibular joint ankylosis reconstruction: a retrospective study. Indian J. Dent. Res. 28, 169–174 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Barrero, C. E. et al. Long-term outcomes and growth analysis of costochondral grafts for hemifacial microsomia: 24-year experience of a single surgeon. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 10, 1097 (2023).
Google Scholar
Mittal, N., Goyal, M. & Sardana, D. Autogenous grafts for reconstruction arthroplasty in temporomandibular joint ankylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 60, 1151–1158 (2022).PubMed
Google Scholar
Bhardwaj, Y. & Arya, S. Post-ankylotic temporomandibular joint reconstruction using autogenous/alloplastic materials: our protocol and treatment outcomes in 22 patients. Craniomaxillofac. Trauma Reconstr. 9, 284–293 (2016).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Xia, L., He, Y., An, J., Chen, S. & Zhang, Y. Condyle-preserved arthroplasty versus costochondral grafting in paediatric temporomandibular joint ankylosis: a retrospective investigation. Int J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 48, 526–533 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Behnia, H., Motamedi, M. H. & Tehranchi, A. Use of activator appliances in pediatric patients treated with costochondral grafts for temporomandibular joint ankylosis: analysis of 13 cases. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 55, 1408–1416 (1997).PubMed
Google Scholar
Sharma, H., Chowdhury, S., Navaneetham, A., Upadhyay, S. & Alam, S. Costochondral graft as interpositional material for TMJ ankylosis in children: a clinical study. J. Maxillofac. Oral. Surg. 14, 565–572 (2015).PubMed
Google Scholar
Zhao, J. et al. 3-D computed tomography measurement of mandibular growth after costochondral grafting in growing children with temporomandibular joint ankylosis and jaw deformity. Oral. Surg. Oral. Med Oral. Pathol. Oral. Radio. 124, 333–338 (2017).
Google Scholar
Feinberg, S. E. & Larsen, P. E. The use of a pedicled temporalis muscle-pericranial flap for replacement of the TMJ disc: preliminary report. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 47, 142–146 (1989).PubMed
Google Scholar
Lakshmanan, S. et al. Can costochondral grafts fulfil ramus-condyle unit reconstruction goals in children with temporomandibular joint ankylosis? Br. J. oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 59, 184–190 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
Matsuura, H. et al. The effect of autogenous costochondral grafts on temporomandibular joint fibrous and bony ankylosis: a preliminary experimental study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 664, 1517–1525 (2006).
Google Scholar
Mao, Y. et al. Biomechanical analysis of costochondral graft fracture in temporomandibular joint replacement. Sci. Rep. 10, 17754 (2020).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
El-Sayed, M. K. Temporomandibular joint reconstruction with costochondral graft using modified approach. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 37, 897–902 (2008).PubMed
Google Scholar
Troulis, M. J., Williams, W. B. & Kaban, L. B. Endoscopic mandibular condylectomy and reconstruction: early clinical results. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 62, 460–465 (2004).PubMed
Google Scholar
Youmans, R. D. & Russell, E. A. Jr The coronoid process: a new donor source for autogenous bone grafts. Oral. Surg. Oral. Med Oral. Pathol. Oral. Radio. Endod. 27, 422–428 (1969).
Google Scholar
Hong, M. Coronoid process grafting in treatment of temporomandibular ankylosis (author’s transl). Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 62, 37–39 (1982).PubMed
Google Scholar
He, Z. Q. Clinical uses of coronoid process transplantation in the temporomandibular arthroplasty. Zhonghua Kouqiang Yixue Zazhi = Chin. J. Stomatol. 22, 35–37 (1987).
Google Scholar
Tai, Z. X. [Temporomandibular joint reconstruction with coronoid process transplantation in ankylosis]. Zhonghua Kouqiang Yixue Zazhi = Chin. J. Stomatol. 22, 94–96 (1987).
Google Scholar
Hong, Y., Gu, X., Feng, X. & Wang, Y. Modified coronoid process grafts combined with sagittal split osteotomy for treatment of bilateral temporomandibular joint ankylosis. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 60, 11–18 (2002).PubMed
Google Scholar
Zhu, S. S. et al. Free grafting of autogenous coronoid process for condylar reconstruction in patients with temporomandibular joint ankylosis. Oral. Surg. Oral. Med Oral. Pathol. Oral. Radio. Endod. 106, 662–667 (2008).
Google Scholar
Liu, Y. et al. Autogenous coronoid process pedicled on temporal muscle grafts for reconstruction of the mandible condylar in patients with temporomandibular joint ankylosis. Oral. Surg. Oral. Med Oral. Pathol. Oral. Radio. Endod. 109, 203–210 (2010).
Google Scholar
Xie, Q. T. et al. [Application of joint reconstruction with autogenous coronoid process graft to treat temporomandibular joint ankylosis]. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 22, 453–455 (2013).PubMed
Google Scholar
Sabhlok, S., Waknis, P. P. & Gadre, K. S. Applications of coronoid process as a bone graft in maxillofacial surgery. J. Craniofac. Surg. 25, 577–580 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Liu, L. et al. Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of the maxillofacial features of patients with unilateral temporomandibular joint ankylosis undergoing condylar reconstruction with an autogenous coronoid process graft. PLoS ONE 12, e0173142 (2017).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Hu, W., Thadani, S., Mukul, S. K. & Sood, R. Autogeneous coronoid process as free graft for reconstruction of mandibular condyle in patients with temporomandibular ankylosis. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 18, 313–323 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Jafarian, M. & Dehghani, N. Simultaneous chin onlay bone graft using elongated coronoid in the treatment of temporomandibular joint ankylosis. J. Craniofac. Surg. 25, e38–e44 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Zhang, W. et al. Retrospective comparison of autogenous cosotochondral graft and coronoid process graft in the management of unilateral ankylosis of the temporomandibular joint in adults. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 52, 928–933 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mohanty, S. & Verma, A. Ankylosis management with autogenous grafts: a systematic review. J. Oral. Biol. Craniofac. Res. 11, 402–409 (2021).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Chen, S., He, Y., An, J. G. & Zhang, Y. Recurrence-related factors of temporomandibular joint ankylosis: a 10-year experience. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 77, 2512–2521 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Bansal, V., Mowar, A., Dubey, P., Bhatnagar, A. & Bansal, A. Coronoid process and residual ankylotic mass as an autograft in the management of ankylosis of the temporomandibular joint in young adolescent patients: a retrospective clinical investigation. Br. J. oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 54, 280–285 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Huang, D., Lu, C., Yao, Z., He, D. & Yang, C. A comparison of the effect between coronoid process graft and costochondral graft in the reconstruction of temporomandibular joint. J. Craniofac. Surg. 27, e197–e200 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Heffez, L. B. The inverted coronoid-ramus graft for condylar reconstruction. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 77, 1315.e1311–1315.e1319 (2019).
Google Scholar
Yang, X., Hu, J., Yin, G., Hu, J. & Luo, E. Computer-assisted condylar reconstruction in bilateral ankylosis of the temporomandibular joint using autogenous coronoid process. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 49, 612–617 (2011).PubMed
Google Scholar
Yang, Y. T., Li, Y. F., Jiang, N., Bi, R. Y. & Zhu, S. S. Grafts of autogenous coronoid process to reconstruct the mandibular condyle in children with unilateral ankylosis of the temporomandibular joint: long-term effects on mandibular growth. Br. J. oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 56, 107–112 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Kan, Z. J., Su, C. L. & Li, Y. F. Long-term effects of autogenous coronoid grafts on the facial growth of children with unilateral temporomandibular joint ankylosis and reconstructed mandibular condyle. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 38, 23–29 (2020).PubMed
Google Scholar
Hidalgo, A. D. Fibula free flap: a new method of mandible reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 84, 71–79 (1989).PubMed
Google Scholar
Sieg, P., Hasse, A. & Zimmermann, C. E. Versatility of vascularized fibula and soft tissue graft in the reconstruction of the mandibulofacial region. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 28, 356–361 (1999).PubMed
Google Scholar
Wax, M. K. et al. A retrospective analysis of temporomandibular joint reconstruction with free fibula microvascular flap. Laryngoscope 110, 977–981 (2000).PubMed
Google Scholar
Nahabedian, M. Y., Tufaro, A. & Manson, P. N. Improved mandible function after hemimandibulectomy, condylar head preservation, and vascularized fibular reconstruction. Ann. Plast. Surg. 46, 506–510 (2001).PubMed
Google Scholar
Guyot, L. et al. Long-term radiological findings following reconstruction of the condyle with fibular free flaps. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 32, 98–102 (2004).PubMed
Google Scholar
Shan, X. F. et al. Fibular free flap reconstruction for the management of advanced bilateral mandibular osteoradionecrosis. J. Craniofac. Surg. 26, e172–e175 (2015).PubMed
Google Scholar
Gilliot, B. et al. Condylar remodelling after temporomandibular joint reconstruction with fibula free flap. Rev. Stomatol Chir. Maxillofac. Chir. Orale 116, 72–76 (2015).PubMed
Google Scholar
Fariña, R., Campos, P., Beytía, J. & Martínez, B. Reconstruction of temporomandibular joint with a fibula free flap: a case report with a histological study. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 73, 2449.e2441–2445 (2015).
Google Scholar
Thor, A., Rojas, R. A. & Hirsch, J. M. Functional reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint with a free fibular microvascular flap. Scand. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Hand Surg. 42, 233–240 (2008).PubMed
Google Scholar
González-García, R., Naval-Gías, L., Rodríguez-Campo, F. J., Martínez-Chacón, J. L. & Gil-Díez Usandizaga, J. L. Vascularized fibular flap for reconstruction of the condyle after mandibular ablation. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 66, 1133–1137 (2008).PubMed
Google Scholar
Khariwala, S. S., Chan, J., Blackwell, K. E. & Alam, D. S. Temporomandibular joint reconstruction using a vascularized bone graft with Alloderm. J. Reconstr. Microsurg 23, 25–30 (2007).PubMed
Google Scholar
González-García, R., Naval-Gías, L., Rodríguez-Campo, F. J. & Díaz-González, F. J. Predictability of the fibular flap for the reconstruction of the condyle following mandibular ablation. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 45, 253 (2007).PubMed
Google Scholar
Zaid, W. Y., Alshehry, S., Zakhary, G., Yampolsky, A. & Kim, B. Use of vascularized myo-osseous fibula free flap to reconstruct a hemimandibular defect with a concomitant skull defect arising from stock condylar prosthesis displacement into the middle cranial fossa. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 77, 1316.e1311–1316.e1312 (2019).
Google Scholar
Tiongco, R. P., Hui, A., Stern-Buchbinder, Z., Stalder, M. W. & Hilaire, H. S. Reconstruction of bilateral mandibular condyles using a single vascularized fibula. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open 9, e3154 (2021).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Ritschl, L. M. et al. Functional outcome of CAD/CAM-assisted versus conventional microvascular, fibular free flap reconstruction of the mandible: a retrospective study of 30 cases. J. Reconstr. Microsurg. 33, 281–291 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Lee, Z. H. et al. Optimizing functional outcomes in mandibular condyle reconstruction with the free fibula flap using computer-aided design and manufacturing technology. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 76, 1098–1106 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Powers, D. B., Breeze, J. & Erdmann, D. Vascularized fibula TMJ reconstruction: a report of five cases featuring computerized patient-specific surgical planning. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open 10, e4465 (2022).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Cohen, O., Morrison, K. A., Jacobson, A., Levine, J. & Staffenberg, D. A. Free fibula flap for the treatment of agnathia in a 10-year-old with severe agnathia-otocephaly complex. J. Craniofac. Surg. 34, e67–e70 (2023).PubMed
Google Scholar
Petruzzelli, G. J., Cunningham, K. & Vandevender, D. Impact of mandibular condyle preservation on patterns of failure in head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol. Head. Neck Surg. 137, 717–721 (2007).PubMed
Google Scholar
Chao, J. W. et al. Oral rehabilitation outcomes after free fibula reconstruction of the mandible without condylar restoration. J. Craniofac. Surg. 25, 415–417 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Gravvanis, A., Anterriotis, D. & Kakagia, D. Mandibular condyle reconstruction with fibula free-tissue transfer: the role of the masseter muscle. J. Craniofac. Surg. 28, 1955–1959 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Resnick, C. M. et al. Temporomandibular joint ankylosis after ramus construction with free fibula flaps in children with hemifacial microsomia. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 76, 2001.e2001–2001.e2015 (2018).
Google Scholar
Phillips, J. H., Rechner, B. & Tompson, B. D. Mandibular growth following reconstruction using a free fibula graft in the pediatric facial skeleton. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 116, 419–424 (2005).PubMed
Google Scholar
Innocenti, M., Mori, F., Raffaini, M., Lucattelli, E. & Innocenti, A. Mandibular ramus and condyle reconstruction with vascularized proximal fibular epiphyseal transfer in the pediatric patient: a case report. Microsurgery 40, 818–822 (2020).PubMed
Google Scholar
Stucki-McCormick, S. U., Fox, R. M. & Mizrahi, R. D. Reconstruction of a neocondyle using transport distraction osteogenesis. Semin Orthod. 5, 59–63 (1999).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mercuri, L. G. End-stage TMD and TMJ reconstruction Peterson’s. Princ. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 52, 1173–1186 (2012).
Google Scholar
Ilizarov, G. A. The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues. Part I. The influence of stability of fixation and soft-tissue preservation. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 238, 249–281 (1989).
Google Scholar
Imola, M. J., Hamlar, D. D., Thatcher, G. & Chowdhury, K. The versatility of distraction osteogenesis in craniofacial surgery. Arch. Facial Plast. Surg. 4, 8–19 (2002).PubMed
Google Scholar
Stucki-McCormick, S. U., Winick, R. & Winick, A. Distraction osteogenesis for the reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint. N. Y State Dent. J. 64, 36–41 (1998).PubMed
Google Scholar
Stucki-McCormick, S. U. Reconstruction of the mandibular condyle using transport distraction osteogenesis. J. Craniofac. Surg. 8, 48–52 (1997). ; discussion 53.PubMed
Google Scholar
Kwon, T. G., Park, H. S., Kim, J. B. & Shin, H. I. Staged surgical treatment for temporomandibular joint ankylosis: intraoral distraction after temporalis muscle flap reconstruction. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 64, 1680–1683 (2006).PubMed
Google Scholar
Hikiji, H., Takato, T., Matsumoto, S. & Mori, Y. Experimental study of reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint using a bone transport technique. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 58, 1270–1276 (2000).PubMed
Google Scholar
Papageorge, M. B. & Apostolidis, C. Simultaneous mandibular distraction and arthroplasty in a patient with temporomandibular joint ankylosis and mandibular hypoplasia. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 57, 328–333 (1999).PubMed
Google Scholar
Shvyrkov, M. B. Use of distraction osteogenesis in reconstructive surgical interventions on the temporomandibular joint. Stomatologiia 82, 39–42 (2003).PubMed
Google Scholar
Yu, H., Shen, G., Zhang, S. & Wang, X. Gap arthroplasty combined with distraction osteogenesis in the treatment of unilateral ankylosis of the temporomandibular joint and micrognathia. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 47, 200–204 (2009).PubMed
Google Scholar
Feiyun, P. et al. Simultaneous correction of bilateral temporomandibular joint ankylosis with mandibular micrognathia using internal distraction osteogenesis and 3-dimensional craniomaxillofacial models. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 68, 571–577 (2010).PubMed
Google Scholar
Li, J. et al. Staged treatment of temporomandibular joint ankylosis with micrognathia using mandibular osteodistraction and advancement genioplasty. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 70, 2884–2892 (2012).PubMed
Google Scholar
Xu, J. et al. Modified condylar distraction osteogenesis via single preauricular incision for treatment of temporomandibular joint ankylosis. J. Craniofac. Surg. 26, 509–511 (2015).PubMed
Google Scholar
Dolanmaz, D., Ozturk, K., Ilik, M. B. & Celik, M. Reconstruction of condyles by transport distraction osteogenesis: 3 case report with complication management. J. Stomatol Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 119, 348–353 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Iqbal, S., Rahim, A. U. & Hasan, A. A. Correction of hypoplastic mandible in non-syndromic temporomandibular joint ankylosis patients with distraction osteogenesis in Mayo Hospital Lahore: a descriptive study. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 70, 24–28 (2020).PubMed
Google Scholar
Xia, L., Zhang, Y., An, J., Chen, S. & He, Y. Evaluating the remodeling of condyles reconstructed by transport distraction osteogenesis in the treatment of temporomandibular joint ankylosis. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 48, 494–500 (2020).PubMed
Google Scholar
Wang, A. et al. Distraction osteogenesis promotes temporomandibular joint self-remodeling in the treatment of mandibular deviation caused by condylar ankylosis. Heliyon 9, e23055 (2023).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Rao, K., Kumar, S., Kumar, V., Singh, A. K. & Bhatnagar, S. K. The role of simultaneous gap arthroplasty and distraction osteogenesis in the management of temporo-mandibular joint ankylosis with mandibular deformity in children. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 32, 38–42 (2004).PubMed
Google Scholar
Bartlett, S. P., Reid, R. R., Losee, J. E. & Quinn, P. D. Severe proliferative congenital temporomandibular joint ankylosis: a proposed treatment protocol utilizing distraction osteogenesis. J. Craniofac. Surg. 17, 605–610 (2006).PubMed
Google Scholar
de Castro e Silva, L. M., Pereira Filho, V. A., Vieira, E. H. & Gabrielli, M. F. Tracheostomy-dependent child with temporomandibular ankylosis and severe micrognathia treated by piezosurgery and distraction osteogenesis: case report. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 49, e47–e49 (2011).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mehrotra, D., Chellappa, A. A., Gupta, C., Passi, D. & Kumar, S. Reconstruction of ramus-condyle unit with transport distraction osteogenesis: Report of eight cases and review of literature. J. Oral. Biol. Craniofac. Res. 2, 144–148 (2012).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Shang, H., Xue, Y., Liu, Y., Zhao, J. & He, L. Modified internal mandibular distraction osteogenesis in the treatment of micrognathia secondary to temporomandibular joint ankylosis: 4-year follow-up of a case. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 40, 373–378 (2012).PubMed
Google Scholar
Xiao, E., Zhang, Y., An, J., Li, J. & Yan, Y. Long-term evaluation of the stability of reconstructed condyles by transport distraction osteogenesis. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 41, 1490–1494 (2012).PubMed
Google Scholar
Bansal, V., Singh, S., Garg, N. & Dubey, P. Transport distraction osteogenesis as a method of reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint following gap arthroplasty for post-traumatic ankylosis in children: a clinical and radiological prospective assessment of outcome. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 43, 227–236 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Jung, S. Y., Park, J. H., Park, H. S. & Baik, H. S. Transport distraction osteogenesis combined with orthodontic treatment in a patient with unilateral temporomandibular joint ankylosis. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 151, 372–383 (2017).
Google Scholar
Ma, Y., Huang, Y., Zhu, S. & Li, Y. Simultaneous arthroplasty and distraction osteogenesis for the treatment of ankylosis of the temporomandibular joint and secondary mandibular deformities in children. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 57, 135–139 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Yu, X., Wang, J., Hou, S. & Zeng, R. Mandibular distraction osteogenesis in the treatment of pediatric temporomandibular joint ankylosis with micrognathia and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: a case report with 4-year follow-up. Exp. Ther. Med. 18, 4888–4892 (2019).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Yoon, H. J. & Kim, H. G. Intraoral mandibular distraction osteogenesis in facial asymmetry patients with unilateral temporomandibular joint bony ankylosis. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 31, 544–548 (2002).PubMed
Google Scholar
Alwala, A. M., Kasireddy, S. K., Nalamolu, B. & Malyala, S. K. Transport distraction osteogenesis in reconstruction of condyle: use of a 3D model for vector planning. J. Maxillofac. Oral. Surg. 17, 276–280 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Chen, K. et al. Accuracy of virtual surgical planning in treatment of temporomandibular joint ankylosis using distraction osteogenesis: comparison of planned and actual results. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 76, 2422.e2421–2422.e2420 (2018).
Google Scholar
Kaur, K. et al. Evaluation of success of transport disc distraction osteogenesis and costochondral graft for ramus condyle unit reconstruction in pediatric temporomandibular joint ankylosis. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 78, 1018.e1011–1018.e1016 (2020).
Google Scholar
Singh, A. K. et al. Transport distraction osteogenesis compared with autogenous grafts for ramus-condyle unit reconstruction in temporomandibular joint ankylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 60, 731–739 (2022).PubMed
Google Scholar
Kohli, S. et al. The autogenous graft versus transport distraction osteogenesis for reconstruction of the ramus-condyle unit: a prospective comparative study. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 46, 1106–1117 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Simre, S. S. et al. Is transport distraction osteogenesis superior to autogenous costochondral graft for joint reconstruction in temporomandibular joint ankylosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. Med. Pathol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoms.2024.05.006 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Marquez, I. M., Fish, L. C. & Stella, J. P. Two-year follow-up of distraction osteogenesis: Its effect on mandibular ramus height in hemifacial microsomia. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 117, 130–139 (2000).
Google Scholar
Sadakah, A. A., Elgazzar, R. F. & Abdelhady, A. I. Intraoral distraction osteogenesis for the correction of facial deformities following temporomandibular joint ankylosis: a modified technique. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 35, 399–406 (2006).PubMed
Google Scholar
Hassan, S. A. E. & Mohamed, F. I. Distraction osteogenesis in the management of mandibular hypoplasia secondary to temporomandibular joint ankylosis. Long term follow up. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 47, 1510–1520 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Gabbay, J. S. et al. Temporomandibular joint bony ankylosis: comparison of treatment with transport distraction osteogenesis or the matthews device arthroplasty. J. Craniofac. Surg. 17, 516–522 (2006).PubMed
Google Scholar
Srivastava, D. et al. Technique of dual distraction for correction of unilateral temporomandibular joint ankylosis with facial asymmetry: a case series. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 77, 2555.e2551–2555.e2512 (2019).
Google Scholar
López, E. N. & Dogliotti, P. L. Treatment of temporomandibular joint ankylosis in children: is it necessary to perform mandibular distraction simultaneously? J. Craniofac. Surg. 15, 879–884 (2004).PubMed
Google Scholar
Resnick, C. M. Temporomandibular Joint Reconstruction in the Growing Child. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. North Am. 30, 109–121 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Qiao, J. et al. Interpositional arthroplasty by temporalis fascia flap and galea aponeurotica combined with distraction osteogenesis: a modified method in treatment of adult patients with temporomandibular joint ankylosis and mandibular dysplasia. J. Craniofac. Surg. 29, e184–e190 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mercuri, L. G. Costochondral graft versus total alloplastic joint for temporomandibular joint reconstruction. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. North Am. 30, 335–342 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Gerbino, G., Zavattero, E., Berrone, S. & Ramieri, G. One stage treatment of temporomandibular joint complete bony ankylosis using total joint replacement. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 44, 487–492 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mehra, P., Nadershah, M. & Chigurupati, R. Is alloplastic temporomandibular joint reconstruction a viable option in the surgical management of adult patients with idiopathic condylar resorption? J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 74, 2044–2054 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Roychoudhury, A. et al. Alloplastic total joint replacement in management of temporomandibular joint ankylosis. J. Oral. Biol. Craniofac. Res. 11, 457–465 (2021).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Manemi, R. V., Fasanmade, A. & Revington, P. J. Bilateral ankylosis of the jaw treated with total alloplastic replacement using the TMJ concepts system in a patient with ankylosing spondylitis. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 47, 159–161 (2009).PubMed
Google Scholar
Loveless, T. P., Bjornland, T., Dodson, T. B. & Keith, D. A. Efficacy of temporomandibular joint ankylosis surgical treatment. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 68, 1276–1282 (2010).PubMed
Google Scholar
Saeed, N., Hensher, R., McLeod, N. & Kent, J. Reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint autogenous compared with alloplastic. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 40, 296–299 (2002).PubMed
Google Scholar
Tang, W. et al. Condyle replacement after tumor resection: comparison of individual prefabricated titanium implants and costochondral grafts. Oral. Surg. Oral. Med Oral. Pathol. Oral. Radio. Endod. 108, 147–152 (2009).
Google Scholar
Al-Moraissi, E. A., El-Sharkawy, T. M., Mounair, R. M. & El-Ghareeb, T. I. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical outcomes for various surgical modalities in the management of temporomandibular joint ankylosis. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 44, 470–482 (2015).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mittal, N., Goyal, M., Sardana, D. & Dua, J. S. Outcomes of surgical management of TMJ ankylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 47, 1120–1133 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Bhargava, D. et al. A three dimensional (3D) musculoskeletal finite element analysis of DARSN temporomandibular joint (TMJ) prosthesis for total unilateral alloplastic joint replacement. J. Stomatol Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 120, 517–522 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mercuri, L. G. Alloplastic temporomandibular joint reconstruction. Oral. Surg. Oral. Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 85, 631–637 (1998).PubMed
Google Scholar
Kent, J. N. et al. Experience with a polymer glenoid fossa prosthesis for partial or total temporomandibular joint reconstruction. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 44, 520–533 (1986).PubMed
Google Scholar
Henry, C. H. & Wolford, L. M. Treatment outcomes for temporomandibular joint reconstruction after Proplast-Teflon implant failure. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 51, 352–438 (1993).PubMed
Google Scholar
Kent, J. N., Block, M. S., Halpern, J. & Fontenot, M. G. Update on the Vitek partial and total temporomandibular joint systems. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 51, 408–415 (1993).PubMed
Google Scholar
De Meurechy, N., Braem, A. & Mommaerts, M. Y. Biomaterials in temporomandibular joint replacement: current status and future perspectives-a narrative review. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 47, 518–533 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mercuri, L. G. et al. Custom CAD/CAM total temporomandibular joint reconstruction system: preliminary multicenter report. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 53, 106–115 (1995).PubMed
Google Scholar
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. 70, 787–794 (2012). discussion 795-786.PubMed
Google Scholar
Granquist, E. J. et al. Outcomes and survivorship of Biomet microfixation total joint replacement system: results from an FDA post-market study. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 78, 1499–1508 (2020).PubMed
Google Scholar
Wolford, L. M. et al. Twenty-year follow-up study on a patient-fitted temporomandibular joint prosthesis: the Techmedica/TMJ Concepts device. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 73, 952–960 (2015).PubMed
Google Scholar
Boyo, A., McKay, J., Lebovic, G. & Psutka, D. J. Temporomandibular joint total replacement using the Zimmer Biomet Microfixation patient-matched prosthesis results in reduced pain and improved function. Oral. Surg. Oral. Med Oral. Pathol. Oral. Radio. 128, 572–580 (2019).
Google Scholar
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. 43, 1091–1095 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Linsen, S. S., Reich, R. H. & Teschke, M. Mandibular kinematics in patients with alloplastic total temporomandibular joint replacement-a prospective study. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 70, 2057–2064 (2012).PubMed
Google Scholar
Rikhotso, R. E. & Sekhoto, M. G. Alloplastic total temporomandibular joint reconstruction: a 10-year experience of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. J. Craniofac. Surg. 32, 1658–1663 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
Rajkumar, A. & Sidebottom, A. J. Prospective study of the long-term outcomes and complications after total temporomandibular joint replacement: analysis at 10 years. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 51, 665–668 (2022).PubMed
Google Scholar
Leandro, L. F. et al. 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. 42, 1007–1013 (2013).PubMed
Google Scholar
Gerbino, G., Zavattero, E., Bosco, G., Berrone, S. & Ramieri, G. Temporomandibular joint reconstruction with stock and custom-made devices: Indications and results of a 14-year experience. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 45, 1710–1715 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Murdoch, B., Buchanan, J. & Cliff, J. Temporomandibular joint replacement: a New Zealand perspective. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 43, 595–599 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Giannakopoulos, H. E., Sinn, D. P. & Quinn, P. D. Biomet microfixation temporomandibular joint replacement system: a 3-year follow-up study of patients treated. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 70, 787–796 (2012).PubMed
Google Scholar
Burgess, M. et al. Improved outcomes after alloplastic TMJ replacement: analysis of a multicenter study from Australia and New Zealand. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 72, 1251–1257 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
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. 43, 1229–1235 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Ângelo, D. F., Nunes, M., Monje, F., Mota, B. & Salvado, F. A role for total alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement in Gardner syndrome. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 53, 219–222 (2024).PubMed
Google Scholar
Bhargava, D. Hybrid total alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement prosthesis: a pilot study to evaluate feasibility, functional performance and impact on post-operative quality of life. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-023-01203-0 (2023).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Horen, S. R. et al. Alloplastic temporomandibular joint reconstruction following recurrent ameloblastoma resection. J. Craniofac. Surg. 33, 284–288 (2022).PubMed
Google Scholar
Zumbrunn Wojczyńska, A., Steiger, B., Leiggener, C. S., Ettlin, D. A. & Gallo, L. M. Quality of life, chronic pain, insomnia, and jaw malfunction in patients after alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement: a questionnaire-based pilot study. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 50, 948–955 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
Sarlabous, M., El-Rabbany, M., Caminiti, M. & Psutka, D. J. Alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement in patients with systemic inflammatory arthritis and connective tissue disorders. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 79, 2240–2246 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
Brown, Z., Rushing, D. C. & Perez, D. E. Alloplastic temporomandibular joint reconstruction for patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 78, 1492–1498 (2020).PubMed
Google Scholar
Alakailly, X. et al. Patient-centered quality of life measures after alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement surgery. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 46, 204–207 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Linsen, S. S., Reich, R. H. & Teschke, M. Maximum voluntary bite force in patients with alloplastic total TMJ replacement-a prospective study. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 41, 423–428 (2013).PubMed
Google Scholar
Linsen, S. S., Reich, R. H. & Teschke, M. Pressure pain threshold and oral health-related quality of life implications of patients with alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement-a prospective study. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 70, 2531–2542 (2012).PubMed
Google Scholar
Tsang, D. L. Pappas M. The efficacy of Hoffman–Pappas total temporoman-dibular joint replacement system and the use of the severity of impairment scale as a prognostic indicator to predict the outcome of the surgery. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 66, 114–115 (2008).
Google Scholar
Driemel, O. et al. Historical development of alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement after 1945 and state of the art. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 38, 909–920 (2009).PubMed
Google Scholar
Lippincott, I. I. I. A., Dowling, J., Phil, D., Medley, J. & Christensen, R. W. Temporomandibular joint arthroplasty using metal-on-metal and acrylic-on-metal configurations: wear in laboratory tests and in retrievals. Surg. Technol. Int. 8, 321–330 (1999).
Google Scholar
Chase, D. C. et al. The Christensen prosthesis: a retrospective clinical study. Oral. Med Oral. Pathol. Oral. Radio. Endodontol. 80, 273–278 (1995).
Google Scholar
Westermark, A., Hedén, P., Aagaard, E. & Cornelius, C. P. The use of TMJ Concepts prostheses to reconstruct patients with major temporomandibular joint and mandibular defects. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 40, 487–496 (2011).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mercuri, L. G. Temporomandibular joint replacement: past, present and future material considerations. In TMS 2014 Supplemental Proceedings, 181–190 (2014).Geetha, M., Singh, A. K., Asokamani, R. & Gogia, A. K. Ti based biomaterials, the ultimate choice for orthopaedic implants—a review. Prog. Mater. Sci. 54, 397–425 (2009).
Google Scholar
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. 65, 1140–1148 (2007).PubMed
Google Scholar
Schuurhuis, J. M., Dijkstra, P. U., Stegenga, B., de Bont, L. G. M. & Spijkervet, F. K. L. Groningen temporomandibular total joint prosthesis: an 8-year longitudinal follow-up on function and pain. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 40, 815–820 (2012).PubMed
Google Scholar
Zhao, J., Zou, L., He, D. & Ellis, E. 3rd. Comparison of bone adaptation after modification in Biomet standard alloplastic temporomandibular joint prostheses. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 46, 1707–1711 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Alagarsamy, R. et al. Evaluation of fit feasibility of stock total joint replacement in temporomandibular joint ankylosis patients. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 59, 792–797 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
Brown, Z. L., Sarrami, S. & Perez, D. E. Will they fit? Determinants of the adaptability of stock TMJ prostheses where custom TMJ prostheses were utilized. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 50, 220–226 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
Lotesto, A., Miloro, M., Mercuri, L. G. & Sukotjo, C. Status of alloplastic total temporomandibular joint replacement procedures performed by members of the American Society of Temporomandibular Joint Surgeons. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 46, 93–96 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Kanatsios, S., Thomas, A. M. & Tocaciu, S. Comparative clinical outcomes between stock vs custom temporomandibular total joint replacement systems. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 50, 322–327 (2022).PubMed
Google Scholar
Sahdev, R. et al. A retrospective study of patient outcomes after temporomandibular joint replacement with alloplastic total joint prosthesis at Massachusetts General Hospital. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 77, 280–288 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Sarlabous, M. & Psutka, D. J. Treatment of mandibular ameloblastoma involving the mandibular condyle: resection and concomitant reconstruction with a custom hybrid total joint prosthesis and iliac bone graft. J. Craniofac. Surg. 29, e307–e314 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
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. 60, 1440–1448 (2002).PubMed
Google Scholar
Bhargava, D. et al. Predictability and feasibility of total alloplastic temporomandibular joint reconstruction using DARSN TM Joint Prosthesis for patients in Indian subcontinent—a prospective clinical study. J. Stomatol Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 121, 2–8 (2020).PubMed
Google Scholar
Bai, G. et al. Application of digital templates to guide total alloplastic joint replacement surgery with Biomet standard replacement system. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 72, 2440–2452 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Sembronio, S., Tel, A., Costa, F., Isola, M. & Robiony, M. Accuracy of custom-fitted temporomandibular joint alloplastic reconstruction and virtual surgical planning. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 48, 1077–1083 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Humphries, L. S. et al. Custom Alloplastic Temporomandibular Joint Reconstruction: Expanding Reconstructive Horizons. J. Craniofac. Surg. 31, 1651–1658 (2020).PubMed
Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Perez, L. M., Gonzalez-Perez-Somarriba, B., Centeno, G., Vallellano, C. & Montes-Carmona, J. F. Evaluation of total alloplastic temporo-mandibular joint replacement with two different types of prostheses: a three-year prospective study. Med Oral. Patol. Oral. Cir. Bucal 21, e766–e775 (2016).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Bach, E., Sigaux, N., Fauvernier, M. & Cousin, A. S. Reasons for failure of total temporomandibular joint replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 51, 1059–1068 (2022).PubMed
Google Scholar
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. 32, 268–274 (2003).PubMed
Google Scholar
Yaseen, M. et al. Temporomandibular total joint replacement implant devices: a systematic review of their outcomes. J. Long. Term. Eff. Med. Implants 31, 91–98 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
Peres Lima, F. G. et al. Complications of total temporomandibular joint replacement: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 52, 584–594 (2023).PubMed
Google Scholar
Siegmund, B. J., Winter, K., Meyer-Marcotty, P. & Rustemeyer, J. Reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint: a comparison between prefabricated and customized alloplastic prosthetic total joint systems. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 48, 1066–1071 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Onoriobe, U. et al. How many temporomandibular joint total joint alloplastic implants will be placed in the United States in 2030? J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 74, 1531–1538 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Zou, L., Zhao, J. & He, D. Preliminary clinical study of Chinese standard alloplastic temporomandibular joint prosthesis. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 47, 602–606 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Johnson, N. R., Roberts, M. J., Doi, S. A. & Batstone, M. D. Total temporomandibular joint replacement prostheses: a systematic review and bias-adjusted meta-analysis. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 46, 86–92 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Elledge, R. et al. Review of emerging temporomandibular joint total joint replacement systems. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 57, 722–728 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Keyser, B. R., Banda, A. K., Mercuri, L. G., Warburton, G. & Sullivan, S. M. Alloplastic total temporomandibular joint replacement in skeletally immature patients: a pilot survey. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 49, 1202–1209 (2020).PubMed
Google Scholar
Goker, F. et al. Custom made/patient specific alloplastic total temporomandibular joint replacement in immature patient: a case report and short review of literature. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharm. Sci. 26, 26–34 (2022).
Google Scholar
Sinn, D. P., Tandon, R. & Tiwana, P. S. Can alloplastic total temporomandibular joint reconstruction be used in the growing patient? A preliminary report. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 79, 2267.e2261 (2021).
Google Scholar
Khattak, Y. R. et al. Can growing patients with end-stage TMJ pathology be successfully treated with alloplastic temporomandibular joint reconstruction?—A systematic review. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 28, 529–537 (2024).PubMed
Google Scholar
Hechler, B. L. & Matthews, N. S. Role of alloplastic reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint in the juvenile idiopathic arthritis population. Br. J. oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 59, 21–27 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
Cascone, P. et al. TMJ replacement utilizing patient-fitted TMJ TJR devices in a re-ankylosis child. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 44, 493–499 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Gakhal, M. K., Gupta, B. & Sidebottom, A. J. Analysis of outcomes after revision replacement of failed total temporomandibular joint prostheses. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 58, 220–224 (2020).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mercuri, L. G., Urban, R. M., Hall, D. J. & Mathew, M. T. Adverse local tissue responses to failed temporomandibular joint implants. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 75, 2076–2084 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Jones, R. H. Temporomandibular joint reconstruction with total alloplastic joint replacement. Aust. Dent. J. 56, 85–91 (2011).PubMed
Google Scholar
Chowdhury, S. K. R., Saxena, V., Rajkumar, K. & Shadamarshan, R. A. Evaluation of total alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement in TMJ ankylosis. J. Maxillofac. Oral. Surg. 18, 293–298 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Elledge, R. et al. UK temporomandibular joint replacement database: a report on one-year outcomes. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 55, 927–931 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
O’Connor, R. C., Saleem, S. & Sidebottom, A. J. Prospective outcome analysis of total replacement of the temporomandibular joint with the TMJ Concepts system in patients with inflammatory arthritic diseases. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 54, 604–609 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Kanatsios, S., Breik, O. & Dimitroulis, G. Biomet stock temporomandibular joint prosthesis: long-term outcomes of the use of titanium condyles secured with four or five condylar fixation screws. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 46, 1697–1702 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Balon, P., Vesnaver, A., Kansky, A., Kočar, M. & Prodnik, L. Treatment of end stage temporomandibular joint disorder using a temporomandibular joint total prosthesis: the Slovenian experience. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 47, 60–65 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Roychoudhury, A., Yadav, P., Alagarsamy, R., Bhutia, O. & Goswami, D. Outcome of stock total joint replacement with fat grafting in adult temporomandibular joint ankylosis patients. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 79, 75–87 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
Sidebottom, A. J. & Gruber, E. One-year prospective outcome analysis and complicationsfollowing total replacement of the temporomandibular joint with the TMJ Concepts system. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 51, 620–624 (2013).PubMed
Google Scholar
Saeed, N. R. & McLeod, N. M. H. Predictive risk factors for facial nerve injury intemporomandibular joint replacement surgery. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 59, 1243–1247 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
Hohman, M. H., Bhama, P. K. & Hadlock, T. A. Epidemiology of iatrogenic facial nerve injury: a decade of experience. Laryngoscope 124, 260–265 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Pinto, L. P. et al. 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. 38, 326–331 (2009).PubMed
Google Scholar
Wolford, L. et al. Temporomandibular joint ankylosis can be successfully treated with TMJ Concepts patient-fitted total joint prosthesis and autogenous fat grafts. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 74, 1215–1227 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Ettinger, K. S. et al. Does the amount of screw fixation utilized for the condylar component of the TMJ Concepts total temporomandibular joint reconstruction predispose to hardware loss or postoperative complications. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 74, 1741–1750 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Wolford, L. M., Rodrigues, D. B. & McPhillips, A. Management of the infected temporomandibular joint total joint prosthesis. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 68, 2810–2823 (2010).PubMed
Google Scholar
Lee, K. C., Chintalapudi, N., Halepas, S., Chuang, S. K. & Selvi, F. The healthcare burden and associated adverse events from total alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement: a national United States perspective. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 50, 236–241 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mercuri, L. G. Avoiding and managing temporomandibular joint total joint replacement surgical site infections. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 70, 2280–2289 (2012).PubMed
Google Scholar
Riegel, R., Sweeney, K., Inverso, G., Quinn, P. D. & Granquist, E. J. Microbiology alloplastic total joint infections: a 20-year retrospective study. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 76, 288–293 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Bryce, E. et al. Nasal photodisinfection and chlorhexidine wipes decrease surgical site infections: a historical control study and propensity analysis. J. Hospital Infect. 88, 89–95 (2014).
Google Scholar
Ban, K. A. et al. American College of Surgeons and Surgical Infection Society: Surgical Site Infection Guidelines, 2016 update. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 224, 59–74 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Gallo, J., Holinka, M. & Moucha, C. S. Antibacterial surface treatment for orthopaedic implants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 15, 13849–13880 (2014).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Norambuena, G. A. et al. Antibacterial and biocompatible titanium–copper oxide coating may be a potential strategy to reduce periprosthetic infection: an in vitro study. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 475, 722–732 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mercuri, L. G. & Psutka, D. Peri-operative, post-operative and prophylactic use of antibiotics in alloplastic total temporomandibular joint replacement surgery: a survey and preliminary guidelines. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 69, 2106–2111 (2011).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mercuri, L. G. Prevention and detection of prosthetic temporomandibular joint infections-update. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 48, 217–224 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Shanmugasundaram, S., Ricciardi, B. F., Briggs, T. W., Sussmann, P. S. & Bostrom, M. P. Evaluation and management of periprosthetic joint infection—an international, multicenter study. HSS J. 10, 36–44 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Khader, R., Tingey, J. & Sewall, S. Temporomandibular prosthetic joint infections associated with Propionibacterium acnes: a case series, and a review of the literature. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 75, 2512–2520 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Goswami, K., Parvizi, J. & Maxwell Courtney, P. Current recommendations for the diagnosis of acute and chronic PJI for hip and knee-cell counts, alpha-defensin, leukocyte esterase, next-generation sequencing. Curr. Rev. Musculoskelet. Med. 11, 428–438 (2018).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Xie, K., Dai, K., Qu, X. & Yan, M. Serum and synovial fluid interleukin-6 for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. Sci. Rep. 7, 1496 (2017).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Wyatt, M. C. et al. The alpha-defensin immunoassay and leukocyte esterase colorimetric strip test for the diagnosis of periprosthetic infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 98, 992–1000 (2016).
Google Scholar
Shahi, A. et al. Serum D-dimer test is promising for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection and timing of reimplantation. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 99, 1419–1427 (2017).
Google Scholar
Tarabichi, M. et al. Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: the potential of next-generation sequencing. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 100, 147–154 (2018).
Google Scholar
Hassan, S., Mercuri, L. G. & Miloro, M. Does metal hypersensitivity have relevance in patients undergoing TMJ prosthetic replacement? J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 78, 908–915 (2020).PubMed
Google Scholar
Wolford, L. M. Factors to consider in joint prosthesis systems. Bayl. Univ. Med. Cent. Proc. 19, 232–238 (2006).
Google Scholar
Singh, R. & Dahotre, N. B. Corrosion degradation and prevention by surface modification of biometallic materials. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 18, 725–751 (2007).PubMed
Google Scholar
Hussain, O. T., Sah, S. & Sidebottom, A. J. 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. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 52, 34–37 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Hallab, N., Merritt, K. & Jacobs, J. Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 83, 428 (2001).
Google Scholar
Wolford, L. M., Amaya, P., Kesterke, M., Pitombeira Pinto, L. & Franco, P. Can patients with metal hypersensitivity requiring TMJ total joint prostheses be successfully treated with all-titanium alloy mandibular components? J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 80, 599–613 (2022).PubMed
Google Scholar
Sidebottom, A. J., Speculand, B. & Hensher, R. Foreign body response around total prosthetic metal-on-metal replacements of the temporomandibular joint in the UK. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 46, 288–292 (2008).PubMed
Google Scholar
Schalock, P. C., Menne, T. & Johansen, J. D. Hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants—diagnostic algorithm and suggested patch test series for clinical use. Contact Dermat. 66, 4 (2012).
Google Scholar
Warshaw, E. M., Belsito, D. V. & Taylor, J. S. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2009 to 2010. Dermatitis 24, 50 (2013).PubMed
Google Scholar
Christensen, T. J., Samant, S. A. & Shin, A. Y. Making sense of metal allergy and hypersensitivity to metallic implants in relation to hand surgery. J. Hand Surg. Am. 42, 737 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mercuri, L. G. & Caicedo, M. S. Material hypersensitivity and alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 77, 1371–1376 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Keith, D. A., Handa, S. & Mercuri, L. G. Peri-articular bone formation involving the temporomandibular joint: a narrative summary and Delphi consensus of a new classification system. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 53, 212–218 (2024).PubMed
Google Scholar
Meyers, C. et al. Heterotopic ossification: a comprehensive review. JBMR 3, e10172 (2019).
Google Scholar
Mercuri, L. G., Alcheikh Ali, F. & Woolson, R. Outcomes of total alloplastic replacement with periarticular autologous fat grafting for management of reankylosis of the temporomandibular joint. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 66, 1794–1803 (2008).
Google Scholar
Mercuri, L. G. & Saltzman, B. M. Acquired heterotopic ossification of the temporomandibular joint. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 46, 1562–1568 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
ShanYong, Z. et al. Modified surgical techniques for total alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement: one institution’s experience. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 43, 934–939 (2015).PubMed
Google Scholar
Ding, R., Lu, C., Zhao, J. & He, D. Heterotopic ossification after alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement: a case cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 23, 638 (2022).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Selbong, U., Rashidi, R. & Sidebottom, A. Management of recurrent heterotopic ossification around total alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 45, 1234–1236 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mustafa el, M. & Sidebottom, A. Risk factors for intraoperative dislocation of the total temporomandibular joint replacement and its management. Br. J. oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 52, 190–192 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Machoň, V. et al. Evaluation of complications following stock replacement of the temporomandibular joint performed between the years 2006 and 2015: a retrospective study. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 24, 373–379 (2020).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mercuri, L. G. Alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement: rationale for the use of custom devices. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 41, 1033–1040 (2012).PubMed
Google Scholar
McGregor, D. B., Baan, R. A., Partensky, C., Rice, J. M. & Wilbourn, J. D. Evaluation of the carcinogenic risks to humans associated with surgical implants and other foreign bodies—a report of an IARC Monographs Programme Meeting. Eur. J. Cancer 36, 307–313 (2000).PubMed
Google Scholar
Yang, K. & Ren, Y. Nickel-free austenitic stainless steels for medical applications. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 11, 014105 (2010).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Talha, M., Behera, C. K. & Sinha, O. P. A review on nickel-free nitrogen containing austenitic stainless steels for biomedical applications. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. Mater. Biol. Appl. 33, 3563–3575 (2013).PubMed
Google Scholar
Romanczuk, E., Perkowski, K. & Oksiuta, Z. Microstructure, mechanical, and corrosion properties of Ni-free austenitic stainless steel prepared by mechanical alloying and HIPping. Materials 12, 3416 (2019).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Radice, S., Impergre, A., Fischer, A. & Wimmer, M. A. Corrosion resistance of the nickel‐free high‐nitrogen steel FeCrMnMoN0.9 under simulated inflammatory conditions. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 109, 902–910 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
De Meurechy, N. & Mommaerts, M. Y. Alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement systems: a systematic review of their history. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 47, 743–754 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Riviș, M. et al. The implications of titanium alloys applied in maxillofacial osteosynthesis. Appl. Sci. 10, 3203 (2020).
Google Scholar
Yang, X. & Hutchinson, C. R. Corrosionwear of β-Ti alloy TMZF (Ti–12Mo–6Zr–2Fe) in simulated body fluid. Acta Biomater. 42, 429–439 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Chan, C. W. et al. Enhancement of wear and corrosion resistance of beta titanium alloy by laser gas alloying with nitrogen. Appl. Surf. Sci. 367, 80–90 (2016).
Google Scholar
Kopova, I. et al. Newly developed Ti-Nb-Zr-Ta-Si-Fe biomedical beta titanium alloys with increased strength and enhanced biocompatibility. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 60, 230–238 (2016).
Google Scholar
Jiang, S. W. et al. Friction and wear study of diamond-like carbon gradient coatings on Ti6Al4V substrate prepared by plasma source ion implant-ion beam enhanced deposition. Appl Surf. Sci. 236, 285–291 (2004).
Google Scholar
Kim, D. H., Kim, H. E., Lee, K. R., Whang, C. N. & Lee, I. S. Characterization of diamond-like carbon films deposited on commercially pure Ti and Ti–6Al–4V. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 22, 9–14 (2002).
Google Scholar
Firkins, P., Hailey, J. L., Fisher, J., Lettington, A. H. & Butter, R. Wear of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene against damaged and undamaged stainless steel and diamond-like carbon-coated counterfaces. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 9, 597–601 (1998).PubMed
Google Scholar
Lee, W. T. et al. Stress shielding and fatigue limits of poly-ether-ether-ketone dental implants. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 100, 1044–1052 (2012).
Google Scholar
Mercuri, L. G., Neto, M. Q. & Pourzal, R. Alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement: present status and future perspectives of the elements of embodiment. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 51, 1573–1578 (2022).PubMed
Google Scholar
Kowalewski, P. & Wieleba, W. Sliding polymers in the joint alloplastic. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 7, 107–119 (2007).
Google Scholar
Gupta, A., Tripathi, G., Lahiri, D. & Balani, K. Compression molded ultra high molecular weight polyethylene–hydroxyapatite–aluminum oxide–carbon nanotube hybrid composites for hard tissue replacement. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 29, 514–522 (2013).
Google Scholar
May, B., Saha, S. & Saltzman, M. Three-dimensional mathematical model of temporomandibular joint loading. Clin. Biomech. 16, 489–495 (2001).
Google Scholar
Linsen, S. S., Schön, A., Teschke, M. & Mercuri, L. G. Does maximum voluntary clenching force pose a risk to overloading alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement? A prospective cohort study. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 79, 2433–2443 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
Bracco, P. & Oral, E. Vitamin E-stabilized UHMWPE for total joint implants: a review. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 469, 2286–2293 (2011).PubMed
Google Scholar
Xiang, S., Zhao, Y., Li, Z., Feng, B. & Weng, X. Clinical outcomes of ceramic femoral prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 14, 57 (2019).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Verma, S., Sharma, N., Kango, S. & Sharma, S. Developments of PEEK (polyetheretherketone) as a biomedical material: a focused review. Eur. Polym. J. 147, 110295 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kurtz, S. M. et al. Advances in zirconia toughened alumina biomaterials for total joint replacement. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 31, 107–116 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Sequeira, S., Fernandes, M. H., Neves, N. & Almeida, M. M. Development and characterization of zirconia-alumina composites for orthopedic implants. Ceram. Int 43, 693–703 (2016).
Google Scholar
Brockett, C. L., Carbone, S., Fisher, J. & Jennings, L. M. PEEK and CFR-PEEK as alternative bearing materials to UHMWPE in a fixed bearing total knee replacement: an experimental wear study. Wear 374, 86–91 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Wang, A., Lin, R., Stark, C. & Dumbleton, J. Suitability and limitations of carbon fiber reinforced PEEK composites as bearing surfaces for total joint replacements. Wear 225, 724–727 (1999).
Google Scholar
Oldhoff, M. G. E., Mirzaali, M. J., Tumer, N., Zhou, J. & Zadpoor, A. A. Comparison in clinical performance of surgical guides for mandibular surgery and temporomandibular joint implants fabricated by additive manufacturing techniques. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 119, 104512 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
Putra, N. E., Mirzaali, M. J., Apachitei, I., Zhou, J. & Zadpoor, A. A. Multi-material additive manufacturing technologies for Ti-, Mg-, and Fe-based biomaterials for bone substitution. Acta Biomater. 109, 1–20 (2020).PubMed
Google Scholar
Zadpoor, A. A. Design for additive bio-manufacturing: from patient-specific medical devices to rationally designed meta-biomaterials. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 18, 1607 (2017).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Taniguchi, N. et al. Effect of pore size on bone ingrowth into porous titanium implants fabricated by additive manufacturing: an in vivo experiment. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. Mater. Biol. Appl. 59, 690–701 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Zadpoor, A. A. & Malda, J. Additive manufacturing of biomaterials, tissues, and organs. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 45, 1–11 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Ackland, D. C. et al. A personalized 3D-printed prosthetic joint replacement for the human temporomandibular joint: From implant design to implantation. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 69, 404–411 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Ackland, D., Robinson, D., Lee, P. V. S. & Dimitroulis, G. Design and clinical outcome of a novel 3D-printed prosthetic joint replacement for the human temporomandibular joint. Clin. Biomech. 56, 52–60 (2018).
Google Scholar
Dimitroulis, G., Austin, S., Sin Lee, P. V. & Ackland, D. A new three-dimensional, print-on-demand temporomandibular prosthetic total joint replacement system: Preliminary outcomes. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 46, 1192–1198 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Zheng, J. S. et al. Customized skull base-temporomandibular joint combined prosthesis with 3D-printing fabrication for craniomaxillofacial reconstruction: a preliminary study. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 48, 1440–1447 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Kozakiewicz, M., Wach, T., Szymor, P. & Zielinski, R. Two different techniques of manufacturing TMJ replacements—a technical report. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 45, 1432–1437 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Nickels, L. World’s first patient-specific jaw implant. Met. Powder Rep. 67, 12–14 (2012).
Google Scholar
Zheng, J. et al. An innovative total temporomandibular joint prosthesis with customized design and 3D printing additive fabrication: a prospective clinical study. J. Transl. Med. 17, 4 (2019).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Javaid, M. & Haleem, A. Current status and applications of additive manufacturing in dentistry: a literature-based review. J. Oral. Biol. Craniofac. Res. 9, 179–185 (2019).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Wang, Q. et al. Evaluation of the properties of 3D-printed Ti alloy plates: in vivo and in vitro comparative experimental study. J. Clin. Med. 12, 444 (2023).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Valenti, C. et al. Mechanical and biological properties of polymer materials for oral appliances produced with additive 3D printing and subtractive CAD-CAM techniques compared to conventional methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral. Investig. 28, 396 (2024).PubMed
Google Scholar
Ricles, L. M., Coburn, J. C. & Di Prima, M. OhSS. Regulating 3D-printed medical products. Sci. Transl. Med. 10, eaan6521 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Neto, M. Q. et al. Alloys used in different temporomandibular joint reconstruction replacement prostheses exhibit variable microstructures and electrochemical properties. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 80, 798–813 (2022).PubMed
Google Scholar
Amarista, F. J. & Perez, D. E. Concomitant temporomandibular joint replacement and orthognathic surgery. Diagnostics 13, 2486 (2023).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Ibrahim, M. T., Beder, R. R. & Breshah, M. N. Computer-assisted surgical simulation for temporomandibular joint reconstruction with costochondral graft. Tanta Dent. J. 19, 52–56 (2022).
Google Scholar
Kirke, D. N., Owen, R. P., Carrao, V., Miles, B. A. & Kass, J. I. Using 3D computer planning for complex reconstruction of mandibular defects. Cancers Head. Neck 1, 17 (2016).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Schwartz, H. C. & Relle, R. J. Distraction osteogenesis for temporomandibular joint reconstruction. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 66, 718–723 (2008).PubMed
Google Scholar
Yadav, P., Roychoudhury, A. & Bhutia, O. Strategies to reduce re-ankylosis in temporomandibular joint ankylosis patients. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 59, 820–825 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
He, D. et al. Traumatic temporomandibular joint ankylosis: our classification and treatment experience. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 69, 1600–1607 (2011).PubMed
Google Scholar
Dimitroulis, G. The interpositional dermis-fat graft in the management of temporomandibular joint ankylosis. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 33, 755–760 (2004).PubMed
Google Scholar
el-Sheikh, M. M. Temporomandibular joint ankylosis: the Egyptian experience. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 81, 12–18 (1999).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Zavala, A., Ore, J. F., Broggi, A. & De Pawlikowski, W. Pediatric mandibular reconstruction using the vascularized fibula free flap: functional outcomes in 34 consecutive patients. Ann. Plast. Surg. 87, 662–668 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
Zhang, W. et al. The sequential treatment of temporomandibular joint ankylosis with secondary deformities by distraction osteogenesis and arthroplasty or TMJ reconstruction. Int. J. oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 47, 1052–1059 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Christensen, R. W. Mandibular joint arthrosis corrected by the insertion of a cast-vitallium glenoid fossa prosthesis: a new technique. report of a case. Oral. Surg. Oral. Med Oral. Pathol. 17, 712–722 (1964).PubMed
Google Scholar
Kiehn, C. L., DesPrez, J. D. & Converse, C. F. A new procedure for total temporomandibular joint replacement. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 53, 221–226 (1974).PubMed
Google Scholar
House, L. R., Morgan, D. H., Hall, W. P. & Vamvas, S. J. Temporomandibular joint surgery: results of a 14-year joint implant study. Laryngoscope 94, 534–538 (1984).PubMed
Google Scholar
Momma, W. G. 1st results with an alloplastic temporomandibular joint prosthesis including the glenoid cavity. Dtsch Zahnarzt. Z. 32, 326–328 (1977).
Google Scholar
Kummoona, R. Functional rehabilitation of ankylosed temporomandibular joints. Oral. Surg. Oral. Med Oral. Pathol. 46, 495–505 (1978).PubMed
Google Scholar
McBride, K. L. Total reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint with the Vitek-Kent prostheses. TMJ Update 7, 15–18 (1989).
Google Scholar
Wolford, L. M., Cottrell, D. A. & Henry, C. H. Temporomandibular joint reconstruction of the complex patient with the Techmedica custom-made total joint prosthesis. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 52, 2–10 (1994).PubMed
Google Scholar
Bütow, K. W., Blackbeard, G. A. & van der Merwe, A. E. Titanium/titanium nitride temporomandibular joint prosthesis: historical background and a six-year clinical review. SADJ 56, 370–376 (2001).PubMed
Google Scholar
Machon, V., Hirjak, D., Beno, M. & Foltan, R. Total alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement: the Czech-Slovak initial experience. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 41, 514–517 (2012).PubMed
Google Scholar
Ramos, A., Duarte, R. J. & Mesnard, M. Strain induced in the condyle by self-tapping screws in the Biomet alloplastic temporomandibular joint: a preliminary experimental study. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 44, 1376–1382 (2015).PubMed
Google Scholar
Pyne, J. M. et al. Advanced mandibular reconstruction with fibular free flap and alloplastic TMJ prosthesis with digital planning. J. Otolaryngol. Head. Neck Surg. 52, 44 (2023).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
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. 49, 455–458 (2011).PubMed
Google Scholar
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. 61, 685–690 (2003).PubMed
Google Scholar
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. 51, 620–624 (2013).PubMed
Google Scholar
Gruber, E. A., McCullough, J. & Sidebottom, A. J. Medium-term outcomes and complications after total replacement of the temporomandibular joint. Prospective outcome analysis after 3 and 5 years. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 53, 412–415 (2015).PubMed
Google Scholar
Speculand Bernard. Current status of replacement of the temporomandibular joint in the United Kingdom. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 47, 37–41 (2009).PubMed
Google Scholar
Kraeima, J., Merema, B. J., Witjes, M. J. H. & Spijkervet, F. K. L. Development of a patient-specific temporomandibular joint prosthesis according to the Groningen principle through a cadaver test series. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 46, 779–784 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mommaerts, M. Y. When is an artificial jaw joint on the agenda today? Tijdschr. Voor Geneeskd. 73, 769–779 (2007).
Google Scholar
Sader, R. et al. A new innovative solution for total TMJ replacement. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 36, S159 (2008).
Google Scholar
Landes, C. et al. One-stage microvascular mandible reconstruction and alloplastic TMJ prosthesis. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 42, 28–34 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Chaware, S. M., Bagaria, V. & Kuthe, A. Application of the rapid prototyping technique to design a customized temporomandibular joint used to treat temporomandibular ankylosis. Indian J. Plast. Surg. 42, 85–93 (2009).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Neelakandan, R. S., Raja, A. V. D. K. & Krishnan, A. M. Total alloplastic temporomandibular joint reconstruction for management of TMJ ankylosis. J. Maxillofac. Oral. Surg. 13, 575–582 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Moreira, C. V. A., Serra, A. V. P., Silva, L. O. R., Fernandes, A. C. F. & de Azevedo, R. A. Total bilateral TMJ reconstruction for pain and dysfunction: case report. Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 42, 138–144 (2017).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
De Oliveira-Neto, P. J., Marchiori, E. C., de Almeida Lopes, M. C. & Moreira, R. W. F. Bilateral alloplastic prostheses for temporomandibular joint reconstruction in a patient with ankylosing spondylitis. Craniomaxillofac. Trauma Reconstr. 7, 149–153 (2014).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
De Souza, N. T. et al. An unusual osteoma in the mandibular condyle and the successful replacement of the temporomandibular joint with a custom-made prosthesis: a case report. BMC Res. Notes 10, 727 (2017).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Ramos, A. & Mesnard, M. A new condyle implant design concept for an alloplastic temporomandibular joint in bone resorption cases. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 44, 1670–1677 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Xu, X., Luo, D., Guo, C. & Rong, Q. A custom-made temporomandibular joint prosthesis for fabrication by selective laser melting: Finite element analysis. Med. Eng. Phys. 46, 1–11 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Aftan, K. Total TMJ replacement with zirconium oxide ceramic prosthesis. Eur. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2, 38–42 (2018).
Google Scholar
Sembronio, S., Tel, A. & Robiony, M. The use of cutting/positioning devices for custom-fitted temporomandibular joint alloplastic reconstruction: current knowledge and development of a new system. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 50, 530–537 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
Download referencesAcknowledgementsThis study was supported by NSFC (82370932), Research and Develop Program of West China Hospital of Stomatology Sichuan University (RD-03-202102, LCYJ2019-20), Natural Science Foundation of Sichuan Province (2023NSFSC1512, 2024NSFSC1588). Figures were created with the help of biorender.com (accessed on 1 April 2024) and Figdraw.Author informationAuthors and AffiliationsState Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, ChinaHanghang Liu, Liwei Huang, Shibo Liu, Linyi Liu, Bolun Li, Zizhuo Zheng, Yao Liu, Xian Liu & En LuoMaine Medical Center Research Institute, Maine Medical Center, Scarborough, ME, USALinyi LiuAuthorsHanghang LiuView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarLiwei HuangView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarShibo LiuView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarLinyi LiuView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarBolun LiView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarZizhuo ZhengView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarYao LiuView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarXian LiuView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarEn LuoView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarContributionsH.L.: conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, software, visualization, writing—original draft; L.H.: data curation, formal analysis, methodology, visualization; S.L.: data curation, validation, writing—original draft; L.L.: formal analysis, validation; B.L.: software, validation; Z.Z.: software, validation; Y.L.: supervision, writing—review and editing; X.L.: conceptualization, funding acquisition, supervision; E.L.: conceptualization, funding acquisition, supervision, writing—review and editing.Corresponding authorCorrespondence to
En Luo.Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Reprints and permissionsAbout this articleCite this articleLiu, H., Huang, L., Liu, S. et al. Evolution of temporomandibular joint reconstruction: from autologous tissue transplantation to alloplastic joint replacement.
Int J Oral Sci 17, 17 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41368-024-00339-3Download citationReceived: 25 May 2024Revised: 11 November 2024Accepted: 19 November 2024Published: 10 March 2025DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41368-024-00339-3Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative