Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34234245›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Biomechanical evaluation of the human mandible after temporomandibular joint replacement under different biting conditions.

Manuel Pinheiro, Robin Willaert, Afaq Khan, Anouar Krairi, Wim Van Paepegem

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Manuel PinheiroDepartment of Materials, Textiles and Chemical Engineering, Mechanics of Materials and Structures (MMS), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. manuel.dasilvapinheiro@ugent.be.ORCID 0000-0001-8234-6790
Robin WillaertDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Afaq KhanMaterials Innovation Institute (M2i), Delft, The Netherlands.
Anouar KrairiMaterials Innovation Institute (M2i), Delft, The Netherlands.
Wim Van PaepegemDepartment of Materials, Textiles and Chemical Engineering, Mechanics of Materials and Structures (MMS), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Ghent University · BEMaterials innovation institute · NLGhent University Hospital · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) replacement with an implant is only used when all other conservative treatments fail. Despite the promising short-term results, the long-term implications of TMJ replacement in masticatory function are not fully understood. Previous human and animal studies have shown that perturbations to the normal masticatory function can lead to morphological and functional changes in the craniomaxillofacial system. A clearer understanding of the biomechanical implications of TMJ replacement in masticatory function may help identify design shortcomings that hinder their long-term success. In this study, patient-specific finite element models of the intact and implanted mandible were developed and simulated under four different biting tasks. In addition, the impact of re-attaching of the lateral pterygoid was also evaluated. The biomechanics of both models was compared regarding both mandibular displacements and principal strain patterns. The results show an excessive mediolateral and anteroposterior displacement of the TMJ implant compared to the intact joint in three biting tasks, namely incisor (INC), left moral (LML), and right molar (RML) biting. The main differences in principal strain distributions were found across the entire mandible, most notably from the symphysis to the ramus of the implanted side. Furthermore, the re-attachment of the lateral pterygoid seems to increase joint anteroposterior displacement in both INC, LML and RML biting while reducing it during LGF. Accordingly, any new TMJ implant design must consider stabilising both mediolateral and anteroposterior movement of the condyle during biting activities and promoting a more natural load transmission along the entire mandible.

Indexed as

Biomechanical PhenomenaJoint ProsthesisModels, AnatomicAlgorithmsFinite Element AnalysisHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMandibleProsthesis DesignTemporomandibular JointTomography, X-Ray ComputedTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34234245
PMCPMC8263622
OpenAlexW3178427691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.