Abstract
Presently, there are two options for the replacement of the temporomandibular joint for end-stage pathology associated with OSA – autogenous bone grafting or alloplastic joint replacement. This chapter presents the evidence-based advantages and disadvantages for each option to assist both the surgeons and their patients as they make the choice. Based on the evidence cited, alloplastic TMJ replacement appears to provide the most predictable functional and aesthetic outcomes for replacement of the TMJ in patients with end-stage disease and pathology such as those associated with OSA.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Temporomandibular joint replacement
- Costochondral graft
- Autogenous bone graft
- Alloplastic temporomandibular replacement
-
1.
Alloplastic TMJ replacement devices do not require a donor site.
-
2.
Alloplastic TMJ replacement devices require less surgery time.
-
3.
Custom alloplastic TMJ replacement devices can be designed and manufactured to conform to the anatomical situation.
-
4.
Alloplastic TMJ replacement device components are not susceptible to prior failed foreign body particles, local, or systemic pathology.
-
5.
Immediately after alloplastic TMJ replacement device implantation, a patient can begin physical therapy hastening regaining mandibular function.
1 Synopsis
Presently, there are two options for the reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint: autogenous bone grafting or alloplastic joint replacement. This chapter presents evidence-based advantages and disadvantages for each of these management options to assist both the surgeons and their obstructive sleep apnea patients in making that choice should this option be required to manage the case.
2 Introduction
Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) reconstruction (TJR) presents unique problems because of the integral role the TMJ plays in establishing and maintaining proper mandibular form and function. The TMJ not only acts as a secondary growth center for the mandible, but its integrity is vital to the functions of mastication, speech, and deglutition, as well as in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) airway support [1].
TMJ TJR goals are (1) improvement of mandibular function and form, (2) reduction of further suffering and disability, (3) containment of excessive treatment and cost, and (4) prevention of further morbidity [2]. End-stage disease and/or pathology such as OSA, with accompanying anatomic form and physiologic function distortions dictate consideration for TMJ TJR.
The surgeon presented with an OSA patient requiring TMJ TJR has two options, either autogenous or alloplastic reconstruction. This chapter presents an evidence-based discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of autogenous and alloplastic TMJ TJR to assist both the surgeon and their patients in making that choice in the management of OSA.
3 Autogenous TMJ Replacement
Autogenous bone grafting has been reported to be “the gold standard” for reconstruction of developmental deformities, end-stage TMJ pathology, and ankylosis using either free or vascularized bone grafts from rib [3], calvarium [4], clavicle [5], iliac crest [6], or fibula [7].
In addition to the reported unpredictability of autogenous bone grafting [8,9,10,11,12], complications frequently occur. Complications associated with bone harvest have been reported up to 19% of cases and include chronic pain, skin sensitivity disorders, and complicated wound healing. This can lead to hypertrophic scarring or infection, fracture, and prolonged length of hospitalization, all associated with additional morbidity and medical costs [13, 14].
The costochondral graft has been the most frequently recommended autogenous bone graft for TMJ reconstruction due to its ease of adaptation to the recipient site, its gross anatomical similarity to the mandibular condyle, and its demonstrated growth potential in skeletally immature patients [3, 15,16,17,18,19].
Reitzik reported that in an analogous situation to autogenous costochondral grafting, cortex-to-cortex healing after vertical ramus osteotomy requires 20 weeks to consolidate in monkeys and 25 weeks in humans [20].
Maxillomandibular fixation is typically maintained for some period in patients after TMJ reconstruction with costochondral grafts. Despite rigid fixation, graft micromotion will invariably occur with early mandibular function. This results in shear stresses on the graft/host interface that potentially can lead to poor neovascularization, nonunion, or failure [21].
In a systematic review of the literature, Kumar et al. assessed the growth potential of costochondral graft for TMJ reconstruction. These authors concluded that there were no randomized clinical trials, and the only evidence is in the form of case series, considered the lowest level of evidence for any study. Therefore, no inference can be interpreted regarding growth potential of costochondral graft. Thus, based on available evidence, they concluded that use of costochondral graft for TMJ reconstruction for its growth potential lacks scientific evidence [22].
The advantages of an autogenous bone graft for TMJ reconstruction:
-
1.
Availability – Part of the human skeletal system. No lead-time to purchase and acquire device components.
-
2.
Biocompatibility – Autogenous tissue, therefore, little concern for issues of biocompatibility or hypersensitivity.
-
3.
Adaptability – Autogenous bone can be shaped at surgery to adapt to the lateral surface of the mandible and glenoid fossa.
-
4.
Less expensive – Alloplastic TMJ replacement components are expensive. No need to maintain an inventory of expensive alloplastic TMJ replacement components and specialized instruments or equipment.
The disadvantages of an autogenous bone graft for TMJ reconstruction:
-
1.
Requires a second surgical donor site.
-
2.
Longer surgery and anesthetic time – Simultaneous autogenous bone harvest and preparation of mandibular implantation sites are most often not technically feasible.
-
3.
Potential morbidity associated with autogenous bone harvesting.
-
4.
Requires neovascularization, bone turnover, and bone healing.
-
5.
Delays physical therapy – Orthopedic surgeons understand that early physical therapy increases the range of motion of reconstructed joints [23]. Keeping a patient immobilized (maxillomandibular fixation) after any open joint surgery, particularly joint replacement, increases muscle atrophy, as well as periarticular fibrosis and the potential for the development of heterotopic ossification and ankylosis [24].
-
6.
Bone is subject to foreign body reactions, local and systemic pathology – Henry and Wolford concluded that a foreign body reaction locally influenced the success of autologous tissue reconstruction [25]. This principle holds true in cases of high inflammatory arthritic diseases, OSA, and condylar resorption [26, 27].
-
7.
Higher relapse potential when autogenous bone grafting to reconstruct the TMJ is combined with orthognathic surgery – Reconstruction of the loss of posterior vertical mandibular height and dental occlusion, as seen in end-stage arthritic disease, condylar resorption, and many cases of OSA, requires counterclockwise rotation of the mandible along with maxillary surgery [27]. This maneuver places great stress on the mandibular condyle. Relapse has been reported high when autogenous costochondral grafting has been used to reconstruct the condyle in such cases [28,29,30].
4 Alloplastic TMJ Replacement
With the potential morbidity associated with harvest of autogenous bone and the inability of these tissues to survive either the transplantation process or the functional demands applied to them, there arose the need for the development and use of alloplastic materials to replace them anatomically and functionally.
The practice of reconstructive orthopedic surgery would be unthinkable and impossible without the availability of alloplastic joint replacement devices. In the 1960s, posed with the problem that resection arthroplasty as an uncertain procedure with recurrent deformity and limited motion as common complications, Sir John Charnley developed a successful low-friction total alloplastic joint replacement device. Since that time, with the evolution of surgical techniques, implant materials and designs, excellent long-term function and quality of life improvement results have been reported along with device survival rates exceeding 90% after 10 years [31, 32].
Over the years, surgeons dealing with end-stage TMJ pathology unable to be managed predictably with autogenous bone grafting developed alloplastic total TMJ replacement systems [33, 34].
Presently, the two US FDA-approved total alloplastic TMJ replacement systems (TMJ Concepts, Ventura, CA and Zimmer Biomet, Jacksonville, FL) have demonstrated long-term successful outcomes in management of end-stage TMJ pathology (◘ Fig. 34.1).
The results of studies comparing the presently available FDA-approved alloplastic TMJ replacement support the surgical implantation of both stock and custom systems. Further, these studies demonstrate that alloplastic TMJ replacement is safe and effective, reduces pain, improves mandibular function, and patients’ quality of life, with few complications. Therefore, alloplastic TMJ replacement represents a viable and stable long-term solution for cranio-mandibular reconstruction in patients with irreversible end-stage TMJ disease [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51].
Lee et al. reviewed published research on TMJ total replacement that compared the outcomes of autogenous costochondral graft and alloplastic TMJ reconstruction. Using PubMed databases , including prospective, retrospective, case–control or longitudinal studies and significant statistical analysis, these authors divided outcomes into “Acceptable” or “Non-acceptable.” These authors discovered seven articles that dealt with costochondral graft in 180 patients. Most patients had good outcomes (n = 109, 61%). They found six articles with 275 patients who had undergone alloplastic TMJ replacements. Those patients had excellent outcomes (n = 261, 95%). These authors concluded that alloplastic total joint reconstruction resulted in increased quality of life and fewer complications in comparison with autogenous costochondral grafting. Therefore, alloplastic TMJ replacement was deemed more effective for total joint replacement than costochondral grafting [52].
The advantages of alloplastic TMJ replacement:
-
1.
Availability – Stock systems can be inventoried for use as needed. Custom devices can be ordered in advance.
-
2.
No donor site morbidity.
-
3.
Decreased surgery time – No donor site.
-
4.
Conforms to the anatomical situation – In the case of a stock system, the surgeon will alter the host bone to allow the components to fit. A custom system provides the surgeon with components that are designed and manufactured for the specific anatomical situation.
-
5.
Components are not susceptible to prior failed foreign body particles, local, or systemic pathology.
-
6.
Patient can begin physical therapy immediately as there is no concern for neovascularization and component mobility.
The disadvantages of an alloplastic TMJ replacement:
-
1.
Expense – Since the operating room, anesthesia, and surgical time charges are much less than with autogenous costochondral graft harvest and implantation, the total cost of alloplastic TMJ replacement is less or at least comparable.
-
2.
Longevity of the components. Studies indicate that alloplastic TMJ replacement devices have a lifespan of at least 10–20 years [37, 38, 41, 42].
-
3.
Material hypersensitivity – Excessive reactivity to implant debris or hypersensitivity to implant debris is relatively rare, where it is estimated that only 1–3% of aseptic failures are due to hypersensitivity responses among traditional metal-on-polymer type total joint replacement hip and knee designs. The percentage of aseptic failures due to biomaterial hypersensitivity in alloplastic TMJ replacement is not known [53].
-
4.
Only indicated for skeletally mature patients – It appears to be myopic to continue to reoperate in children with failed, overgrown, or ankylosed costochondral grafts, with autogenous TMJ replacements, using the same modalities that failed, when there may be an appropriate solution available. These patients would be benefit from undergoing alloplastic TMJ replacements knowing that, depending on functional growth, revision and/or replacement surgery may be required in the future, rather than incurring continued failures of autogenous grafting that will very likely also require future surgical intervention [54, 55].
5 Case
TC was a 27-year-old female who presented for consultation regarding maxillomandibular orthognathic surgery to manage her OSA. Polysomnography documented an apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) of 31.1/hour. She was prescribed and had been using continuous positive airway pressure therapy (CPAP), but this modality was becoming an issue between her and her spouse (◘ Fig. 34.2).
After clinical, radiographic examinations, TMJ, and orthognathic workups, TC and her spouse were presented with a treatment plan that included bilateral TMJ replacements with patient-fitted prostheses to increase her posterior vertical dimension and advance her mandible, LeFort I osteotomy to align her maxilla with the mandibular advancement, and an advancement genioplasty. Since she had a Class I, well interdigitated, and stable occlusion, orthodontics was not considered necessary (◘ Fig. 34.3).
After the surgery, TC was able to discontinue the use of her CPAP and her AHI improved to <10/hour. She has maintained her occlusion and AHI for 5 years (◘ Fig. 34.4).
6 Summary
The current literature supports isolated mandibular advancement as an efficacious treatment modality for adult OSA in select patients with mandibular insufficiency [56]. Therefore, based on the evidence cited, alloplastic TMJ replacement appears to provide the most predictable functional and esthetic outcomes for replacement of the TMJ in patients with end-stage disease and pathology resulting in symptoms of OSA.
References
Mercuri LG. Alloplastic temporomandibular joint reconstruction. Oral Surg. 1998;85:631–7.
Mercuri LG, editor. Temporomandibular joint total joint replacement – TMJ TJR – a comprehensive reference for researchers, material scientists and surgeons. New York: Springer International Publishing; 2015.
MacIntosh RB. The use of autogenous tissue in temporomandibular joint reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;58:63–9.
Lee JJ, Worthington P. Reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint using calvarial bone after a failed Teflon-Proplast implant. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999;57:457–61.
Wolford LM, Cottrell DA, Henry C. Sternoclavicular grafts for temporomandibular joint reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994;52:119–28.
Kummoona R. Chondro-osseous iliac crest graft for one stage reconstruction of the ankylosed TMJ in children. J Maxillofac Surg. 1986;14:215–20.
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. 2015;73:2449. e1–5.
Guyuron B, Lasa CI. Unpredictable growth pattern of costochondral graft. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;90:880–6.
Marx RE. The science and art of reconstructing the jaws and temporomandibular joints. In: Bell WH, editor. Modern practice in orthognathic and reconstructive surgery, vol. 2. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1992.
Svensson A, Adell R. Costochondral grafts to replace mandibular condyles in juvenile chronic arthritis patients: long-term effects on facial growth. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1998;26:275–85.
Ross RB. Costochondral grafts replacing the mandibular condyle. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36:334–9.
Wen-Ching K, Huang C-S, Chen Y-R. Temporomandibular joint reconstruction in children using costochondral grafts. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999;57:789–98.
Dimitroulis G. Temporomandibular joint surgery: what does it mean to the dental practitioner? Aust Dent J. 2011;56:257–64.
Nkenke E, Neukam FW. Autogenous bone harvesting and grafting in advanced jaw resorption: morbidity, resorption and implant survival. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014;7(Suppl 2):S203–17.
Ware WH, Taylor RC. Cartilaginous growth centers transplanted to replace mandibular condyles in monkeys. J Oral Surg. 1966;24:33–43.
Poswillo DE. Experimental reconstruction of the mandibular joint. Int J Oral Surg. 1974;3:400–11.
Ware WH, Brown SL. Growth center transplantation to replace mandibular condyles. J Maxillofac Surg. 1981;9:50–8.
RB MI. Current spectrum of costochondral grafting in surgical correction of dentofacial deformities. In: Bell WH, editor. New concepts, vol. III. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1985.
Poswillo DE. Biological reconstruction of the mandibular condyle. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1987;25:100–4.
Reitzik M. Cortex-to-cortex healing after mandibular osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1983;41:658–63.
Lienau J, Schell H, Duda G. Initial vascularization and tissue differentiation are influenced by fixation stability. J Orthopaed Res. 2005;23:639–45.
Kumar P, Rattan V, Rai S. Do costochondral grafts have any growth potential in temporomandibular joint surgery? A systematic review. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2015;5:198–202.
Salter RB. The biologic concept of continuous passive motion of synovial joints. The first 18 years of basic research and its clinical application. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;242:12–25.
Mercuri LG, Saltzman BM. Acquired heterotopic ossification in alloplastic joint replacement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46:1562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.06.016.
Henry CH, Wolford LM. Treatment outcomes for temporomandibular joint reconstruction after Proplast-Teflon implant failure. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;51:352–8.
Mercuri LG. Surgical management of TMJ arthritis. In: Laskin DM, Greene CS, Hylander WL, editors. Temporomandibular joint disorders: an evidence-based approach to diagnosis and treatment. Chicago: Quintessence; 2006.
Al-Moraissi EA, Wolford LM. Is counterclockwise rotation of the maxillomandibular complex stable compared with clockwise rotation in the correction of dentofacial deformities? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74:2066.e1–e12.
Crawford JG, Stoelinga PJ, Blijdorp PA, Brouns JJ. Stability after reoperation of progressive condylar resorption after orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994;52:460–6.
Huang YL, Ross BR. Diagnosis and management of condylar resorption. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997;55:114–9.
Hoppenreijs TJM, Stoelinga PJ, Grace KL, Robben CM. Long-term evaluation of patients with progressive condylar resorption following orthognathic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999;28:411–8.
Wright TM, Goodman SB. Implant wear in total joint replacement: clinical and biologic issues, material and design considerations. Rosemont: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2001.
Cholewinski P, Putman S, Vasseur L, Migaud H, Duhamel A, Behal H, Pasquier G. Long-term outcomes of primary constrained condylar knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015;101:449–54.
VanLoon JP, DeBont LGM, Boering G. Evaluation of temporomandibular joint prostheses: review of the literature from 1946 -1994 and implications for future designs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;53:984–96.
Driemel O, Braun S, Müller-Richter UD, et al. Historical development of alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement after 1945 and state of the art. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38:909–20.
Mercuri LG, Wolford LM, Sanders B, et al. Custom CAD/CAM total temporomandibular joint reconstruction system: preliminary multicenter report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;53:106–15.
Mercuri LG, Wolford LM, Sanders B, et al. Long-term follow-up of the CAD/CAM patient-fitted total temporomandibular joint reconstruction system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;60:1440–8.
Mercuri LG, Edibam NR, Giobbie-Hurder A. 14-year follow-up of a patient fitted total temporomandibular joint reconstruction system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65:1140–8.
Wolford LM, Mercuri LG, Schneiderman ED, et al. Twenty-year follow-up study on a patient-fitted temporomandibular joint prosthesis: the Techmedica/TMJ concepts device. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73:952–60.
Quinn PD. Lorenz prosthesis. In: Donlon WC, editor. Total temporomandibular joint reconstruction. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2009; Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am 12:93–104, 2000.
Giannakopoulos HE, Sinn DP, Quinn PD. Biomet microfixation temporomandibular joint replacement system: a 3-year follow-up study of patients treated during 1995 to 2005. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70:787–94.
Leandro LF, Ono HY, Loureiro CC, Marinho K, Guevara HA. 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. 2013;42:1007–13.
Sanovich R, Mehta U, Abramowicz S, et al. Total alloplastic temporomandibular joint reconstruction using Biomet stock prostheses: the University of Florida experience. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;43:1091–5.
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. 2014;43:1229–35.
Wolford LM, Dingwerth DJ, Talwar RM, Pitta MC. Comparison of two temporomandibular joint total joint prosthesis systems. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;61:685–90.
Guarda-Nardini L, Manfredini D, Ferronato G. Temporomandibular joint total replacement prosthesis: current knowledge and considerations for the future. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;37:103–10.
Al-Moraissi EA, El-Sharkawy TM, Mounair RM, El-Ghareeb TI. 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. 2015;44:470–82.
Zieman MT, McKenzie WS, Louis PJ. Comparison of temporomandibular joint reconstruction with custom (TMJ concepts) vs. stock (Biomet) prostheses. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73:e79.
Gonzalez-Perez LM, Gonzalez-Perez-Somarriba B, Centeno G, Vallellano C, Montes-Carmona JF. Evaluation of total alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement with two different types of prostheses: a three-year prospective study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016;21:e766–75.
Kunjur J, Niziol R, Matthews NS. Quality of life: patient-reported outcomes after total replacement of the temporomandibular joint. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;54:762–6.
Wojczyńska A, Leiggener CS, Bredell M, et al. Alloplastic total temporomandibular joint replacements: do they perform like natural joints? Prospective cohort study with a historical control. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;45:1213–21.
Johnson NR, Roberts MJ, Doi SA, Batstone MD. Total TMJ replacement prostheses: a systematic review and bias-adjusted meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46:86–92.
Lee WY, Park YW, Kim SG. Comparison of costochondral graft and customized total joint reconstruction for treatments of temporomandibular joint replacement. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;36:135–9.
Hallab NJ. Material hypersensitivity. In: Mercuri LG, editor. Temporomandibular joint total joint replacement – TMJ TJR – a comprehensive reference for researchers, material scientists and surgeons. New York: Springer International Publishing; 2015.
Banda AK, Chopra K, Keyser B, Sullivan S, Warburton G, Mercuri LG. Alloplastic total temporomandibular joint replacement in skeletally immature patients: a pilot survey. In: Proceedings of the Annual Scientific Session American Society of TMJ Surgeons, March 2015, Miami.
Sinn D, Tiwana P. Total joint replacement in the pediatric patient. In: TMJ module at the AAOMS 99th Annual Meeting, October 2017, San Francisco.
Noller MW, Guilleminault C, Gouveia CJ, Mack D, Vivian C, Abdullatif J, Mangili S, Liu SY, Zaghi S, Camacho M. Mandibular advancement for adult obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45:2035e2040.
Disclosure Statement
Dr. Mercuri is compensated by TMJ Concepts as a Clinical Consultant and maintains stock in that company.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mercuri, L.G. (2021). Temporomandibular Joint Reconstruction. In: Kim, K.B., Movahed, R., Malhotra, R.K., Stanley, J.J. (eds) Management of Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54146-0_34
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54146-0_34
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-54145-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-54146-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)