DOI:

10.37988/1811-153X_2024_2_94

Temporomandibular joint replacement as a method of treatment mandibular fractures

Downloads

Authors

  • P.P. Soloshenkov 1, postgraduate, assistant of the Maxillofacial surgery Department
    ORCID: 0000-0002-3844-0082
  • S.Yu. Ivanov 1, 2, Russian Academy of Science corresponding member, PhD in Medical Sciences, full professor of the Maxillofacial surgery Department; full professor of the Maxillofacial surgery Department
    ORCID: 0000-0001-5458-0192
  • L.L. Borozdkin 1, PhD in Medical Sciences, associate professor of the Maxillofacial surgery Department
    ORCID: 0000-0002-6403-2621
  • A.M. Gusarov 1, PhD in Medical Sciences, associate professor of the Maxillofacial surgery Department
    ORCID: 0000-0002-6583-4685
  • D.A. Belozerskikh 1, 5th year student at the Institute of Dentistry
    ORCID: 0009-0001-6222-7345
  • F.A. Volodyaev 1, clinical resident at the Maxillofacial surgery Department
    ORCID: 0009-0004-2466-2241
  • 1 Sechenov University, 119048, Moscow, Russia
  • 2 RUDN University, 117198, Moscow, Russia

Abstract

The aim of the study was to improve the effectiveness of treatment of patients with fracture of the mandibular condyle.
Materials and methods.
The study involved 24 patients from 18 to 65 years old with a fracture of the mandibular condyle at the level of the head and neck with medial displacement (S02.62). The patients were divided into 2 groups: in group I 14 patients underwent classical open repositioning of bone fragments with subsequent metal osteosynthesis, 10 patients of group II underwent endoprosthesis of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) according to our own method. In both groups a combined surgical access — intraoral and transtragal access — was performed.
Results.
During the first month after the operation the patients of group II had a steady increase of the mouth opening value in comparison with the patients of group I — 35.4±0.7 and 23.4±2.6 mm, respectively. The intensity of pain syndrome according to VAS decreased to 1.1±0.7 points in group I and to 0.5±0.5 points in group II. The deviation of the mandible was preserved in 70% of patients in group I and was absent in group II. Neurological deficit of the facial nerve branches, transient paresis, was observed in 38% of cases: in 43% of group I patients and in 30% of group II patients.
Conclusion.
In mandibular condyle fractures the method of choice for surgical treatment can be considered total TMJ endoprosthesis with individual constructions on the basis of preliminary three-dimensional planning and prototyping. This approach helps to reduce the risks of postoperative complications both in the early and late postoperative period.

Key words:

mandibular fracture, temporomandibular replacement, condylar fracture, treatment, quality of life

For Citation

[1]
Soloshenkov P.P., Ivanov S.Yu., Borozdkin L.L., Gusarov A.M., Belozerskikh D.A., Volodyaev F.A. Temporomandibular joint replacement as a method of treatment mandibular fractures. Clinical Dentistry (Russia).  2024; 27 (2): 94—98. DOI: 10.37988/1811-153X_2024_2_94

References

  1. Shashkov V.A., Gaivoronsky I.V., Gaivoronskaya M.G., Iordanishvili A.K., Rodionov A.A., Nichiporuk G.I. Prevalence of different types of lower jaw fractures in adults. Medical Newsletter of Vyatka. 2021; 1 (69): 41—47 (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 44882335
  2. Shiju M., Rastogi S., Gupta P., Kukreja S., Thomas R., Bhugra A.K., Parvatha Reddy M., Choudhury R. Fractures of the mandibular condyle — Open versus closed — A treatment dilemma. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015; 43 (4): 448—51. PMID: 25726918
  3. Asim M.A., Ibrahim M.W., Javed M.U., Zahra R., Qayyum M.U. Functional outcomes of open versus closed treatment of unilateral mandibular condylar fractures. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2019; 31 (1): 67—71. PMID: 30868787
  4. Shakya S., Zhang X., Liu L. Key points in surgical management of mandibular condylar fractures. Chin J Traumatol. 2020; 23 (2): 63—70. PMID: 31744656
  5. Pankratov A.S. Issues of clinical efficacy of modern technologies in osteosynthesis of the lower jaw. Clinical Dentistry (Russia). 2018; 1 (85): 44—49 (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 32759411
  6. Izotov O.I., Sviridov E.G., Drobyshev A.Yu. The choice of surgical approaches in patients with fractures of mandibular condyloid process. Head and Neck. 2018; 3: 12—19 (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 41301440
  7. Neuhaus M.T., Gellrich N.C., Sander A.K., Lethaus B., Halama D., Zimmerer R.M. No significant bone resorption after open treatment of mandibular condylar head fractures in the medium-term. J Clin Med. 2022; 11 (10): 2868. PMID: 35628994
  8. Lee J., Jung H.Y., Ryu J., Jung S., Kook M.S., Park H.J., Oh H.K. Open versus closed treatment for extracapsular fracture of the mandibular condyle. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022; 48 (5): 303—308. PMID: 36316189
  9. Valieva L.U., Pankratov A.S., Ivanov S.Yu., Handzratsyan A.S., Kogay V.V., Asatryan G.E. Dynamics of restoration of functional activity of the mandible after fractures and prolonged immobilization. Clinical Dentistry (Russia). 2022; 4: 130—136 (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 49940627
  10. He D., Ellis E. 3rd, Zhang Y. Etiology of temporomandibular joint ankylosis secondary to condylar fractures: the role of concomitant mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 66 (1): 77—84. PMID: 18083419
  11. Lindell B., Thor A. A case of glenoid fossa fracture, progressive ankylosis, total joint reconstruction with alloplastic prosthesis to normalized function including evaluation with F18-PET/CT — a four year follow-up. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2017; 10 (1): 60—65. PMID: 28210410
  12. He L., Zhang Z., Xiao E., He Y., Zhang Y. Pathogenesis of traumatic temporomandibular joint ankylosis: a narrative review. J Int Med Res. 2020; 48 (11): 300060520972073. PMID: 33213251
  13. Pauwels A., Lozano C., López J.P. The facial nerve injury after temporomandibular joint surgery after endaural approach with sharp dissection. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2022; 21 (3): 957—960. PMID: 36274887
  14. Liu F., Giannakopoulos H., Quinn P.D., Granquist E.J. Retrospective study of facial nerve function following temporomandibular joint arthroplasty using the endaural approach. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2015; 8 (2): 88—93. PMID: 26000077
  15. Fandiño K., Gómez-Delgado A., López J.P. Open reduction of condylar fracture through a modified endaural approach. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2022; 21 (3): 936—938. PMID: 36274878
  16. Jones R.H. Temporomandibular joint reconstruction with total alloplastic joint replacement. Aust Dent J. 2011; 56 (1): 85—91. PMID: 21332746
  17. Polenichkin V.K., Temerkhanov F.T., Polenichkin A.V., Gunter V.E. Lower jaw endoprosthetics with porous titanium nickelide implants. Medicine in Kuzbass. 2004; 1: 27—31 (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 15204139
  18. Zhang B.F., Zhuang Y., Liu L., Xu K., Wang H., Wang B., Wen H.Q., Xu P. Current indications for acute total hip arthroplasty in older patients with acetabular fracture: Evidence in 601 patients from 2002 to 2021. Front Surg. 2022; 9: 1063469. PMID: 36684223

Downloads

Received

February 7, 2024

Accepted

May 17, 2024

Published on

June 28, 2024