Review of emerging temporomandibular joint total joint replacement systems. Issue 8 (October 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Elledge, R.; Mercuri, L.G.; Attard, A.; Green, J.; Speculand, B.
• Is Part Of: British journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Volume 57:Issue 8(2019)
• Page Start: 722
• Page End: 728
• Publication Date: 2019-10
• Subjects: Temporomandibular joint -- total joint replacement; Mouth -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Dentistry, Operative -- Periodicals; Face -- surgery -- Periodicals; Mouth -- surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Oral -- Periodicals; Oral Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Dentistry, Operative -- Periodicals; Bouche -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Maxillaire supérieur -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Face -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Chirurgie dentaire -- Périodiques; Dentistry, Operative; Face -- Surgery; Maxilla -- Surgery; Mouth -- Surgery; Surgery, Plastic; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 617.52059
• DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2019.08.009
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0266-4356

Abstract

Abstract: Total temporomandibular joint (TMJ) replacement has been documented as a viable option for the management of end-stage TMJ disease, but data on long-term outcomes have been reported for only two established systems: TMJ Concepts, and Zimmer Biomet. Other devices are now emerging globally, but reports of preclinical laboratory and clinical outcomes are limited. We retrieved information on the design, material composition, preclinical laboratory tests, regulatory status, and clinical outcomes of new TMJ replacement systems from PubMed and Google, and from personal correspondence with surgeons worldwide. Fifteen countries have developed, or are developing, 27 TMJ replacement systems, of which 21 are custom-designed, but to date, only four have been given regulatory approval. All the devices are designed to have both a skull-based glenoid fossa component and a mandibular ramus or condyle, and 22/27 are similar to the designs of the two established systems. Twenty-one devices use an ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fossa-bearing surface, and 10 have a titanium alloy condyle. Nineteen manufacturers report that a titanium alloy is used for the ramus portion of the condyle/ramus component. Preclinical laboratory tests on 12 of the systems have been reported but, to our knowledge, no outcomes have yet been reported on nine of the 27 reviewed. Not all systems are equal in terms of design, material composition, preclinical laboratory testing, manufacturing methods, regulatory status, and reports of clinical outcomes.