ReviewCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2020
Total Temporomandibular Joint Replacement: Stick to Stock or Optimization by Customization?
Review in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Temporomandibular Joint Defects: Etiology and Reconstruction Strategy: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Evolving Horizons in Temporomandibular Joint Total Replacement: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- 3D printing materials and 3D printed surgical devices in oral and maxillofacial surgery: design, workflow and effectiveness.Regenerative biomaterials · 2024Review
- An Overview of Clinical Conditions and a Systematic Review of Personalized TMJ Replacement.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- A five-year review of the OMX temporomandibular prosthetic total joint replacement system.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2023Article
- Effect of Surface Tooling Techniques of Medical Titanium Implants on Bacterial Biofilm Formation In Vitro.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- 3D Printing and Virtual Surgical Planning in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Biomechanical evaluation of the human mandible after temporomandibular joint replacement under different biting conditions.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- The temporo-mandibular joint: Reconstruction of the condyle post-ablation.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis article aims to compare the difference in postoperative results in patients treated with either a patient-specific (PSI) or a stock temporomandibular total joint replacement system. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe investigators performed a systematic review concerning postoperative results after placement of either a stock total joint replacement system or a PSI. PubMed Central, Web of Science, Cochrane Library Plus, Wiley Online Library, and EMBASE were used to conduct this search. All articles up to August 15, 2018, were scrutinized. All included articles were nonrandomized cohort studies. Maximal mouth opening (MMO) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for pain and diet before and after surgery were evaluated. The Methodological Index for NonRandomized Studies scale was used for quality assessment. Weighted mean difference was calculated and pooled by meta-analysis using random-effect models.
resultsThe search identified 1581 articles, of which 15 were included. The average risk of bias was low. Both systems achieved significant increases in MMO and decreased VAS pain scores at 1, 2, and 3 years after surgery. No significant difference was found between the system types. Both achieved significant improvements in dietary VAS scores, with a more significant improvement for stock implants.
conclusionsDue to the lack of detailed diagnostic evaluation tools allowing proper start-point categorization, there is a significant risk for selection bias in the pooled data. The PSI is more frequently chosen for cases with more significant joint degeneration, skewing postoperative results. A patient-fitted implant can provide significant operative and patient-centered advantages over a stock implant, which will likely be confirmed when observational cohort studies have included indications like the ones for stock prostheses. Furthermore, while current US Food and Drug Administration-approved stock implants contain cobalt -chromium -molybdenum, the newly manufactured PSI are made of titanium alloy, diminishing the risks of morbidity and implant failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.