This study demonstrates a new self-pinned temporomandibular joint (TMJ) prosthesis by reducing the load on the bone and, hence, tissue damage. In this new customized model, a 3D model of the intact mandibula was obtained by means of computer-aided design (CAD) using computed tomography (CT) scan images of a 34-year-old man and then investigated using the finite element method (FEM). The self-pinned TMJ prosthesis with fewer screws was mounted on the broken mandibula (lower jawbone) to create the implanted mandibula, which was then analyzed numerically via FEM. A number of different self-pinned TMJ prosthesis models were also created, and their functional performances under physiological loading were investigated to obtain ideal pin-screw structures. Moreover, alternative prosthetic fixation studies have also been carried out to facilitate surgeons in fixing the self-pinned TMJ prosthesis to the chin. The self-pinned TMJ prosthesis (P2BH-C) developed in the present study has led to a great reduction in stresses, which were well within elastic limits for all prosthetic components compared to the commercial prosthetic model. The developed prosthesis was able to reduce hard and soft tissue damage, which can provide surgeons with a more comfortable and controlled range of motion to avoid damaging the nerves.
CetinMESofuogluH.A statistical approach to explore cemented total hip reconstruction performance. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med2018; 41(1): 177–188.
2.
IngawaléSGoswamiT.Temporomandibular joint: disorders, treatments, and biomechanics. Ann Biomed Eng2009; 37(5): 976–996.
3.
SofuogluHCetinME.An investigation on mechanical failure of hip joint using finite element method. Biomed Tech Biomed Eng2015; 60(6): 603–616.
4.
van LoonJPde BontGMBoeringG.Evaluation of temporomandibular joint prostheses: review of the literature from 1946 to 1994 and implications for future prosthesis designs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg1995; 53(9): 984–996. discussion 996-987.
5.
Gonzalez-PerezLMFakih-GomezNGonzalez-Perez-SomarribaB, et al. Two-year prospective study of outcomes following total temporomandibular joint replacement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2016; 45(1): 78–84.
6.
GruberEAMcCulloughJSidebottomAJ.Medium-term outcomes and complications after total replacement of the temporomandibular joint. Prospective outcome analysis after 3 and 5 years. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg2015; 53(5): 412–415.
7.
Guarda-NardiniLManfrediniDFerronatoG.Temporomandibular joint total replacement prosthesis: current knowledge and considerations for the future. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2008; 37(2): 103–110.
8.
LeandroLFOnoHYLoureiroCC, et al. A ten-year experience and follow-up of three hundred patients fitted with the Biomet/Lorenz Microfixation TMJ replacement system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2013; 42(8): 1007–1013.
9.
MercuriLG.The role of custom-made prosthesis for temporomandibular joint replacement. Revista Española de Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial2013; 35(1): 1–10.
10.
RamosAMesnardM.Christensen vs Biomet Microfixation alloplastic TMJ implant: are there improvements? A numerical study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2015; 43(8): 1398–1403.
11.
RamosAMMesnardM.The stock alloplastic temporomandibular joint implant can influence the behavior of the opposite native joint: a numerical study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2015; 43(8): 1384–1391.
12.
van LoonJPde BontLGStegengaB, et al. Groningen temporomandibular joint prosthesis. Development and first clinical application. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2002; 31(1): 44–52.
13.
AbelEWHilgersAMcLoughlinPM.Finite element analysis of a condylar support prosthesis to replace the temporomandibular joint. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg2015; 53(4): 352–357.
14.
WolfordLMPerezDE.Surgical management of congenital deformities with temporomandibular joint malformation. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am2015; 27(1): 137–154.
15.
ChowdhuryARKashiASahaS.A comparison of stress distributions for different surgical procedures, screw dimensions and orientations for a temporomandibular joint implant. J Biomech2011; 44(14): 2584–2587.
16.
HsuJTHuangHLTsaiMT, et al. Effect of screw fixation on temporomandibular joint condylar prosthesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2011; 69(5): 1320–1328.
17.
RamosACompletoARelvasC, et al. Straight, semi-anatomic and anatomic TMJ implants: the influence of condylar geometry and bone fixation screws. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2011; 39(5): 343–350.
18.
RamosADuarteRJMesnardM.Strain induced in the condyle by self-tapping screws in the Biomet alloplastic temporomandibular joint: a preliminary experimental study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2015; 44(11): 1376–1382.
19.
RamosARelvasCCompletoA, et al. The importance of the geometry of the screws in TMJ implant fixation. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2013; 16(Suppl 1): 258–259.
20.
AcklandDCRobinsonDRedheadM, et al. A personalized 3D-printed prosthetic joint replacement for the human temporomandibular joint: from implant design to implantation. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2017; 69: 404–411.
21.
RamosADuarteRJMesnardM.Prediction at long-term condyle screw fixation of temporomandibular joint implant: a numerical study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2015; 43(4): 469–474.
22.
De MeurechyNBraemAMommaertsMY. Biomaterials in temporomandibular joint replacement: current status and future perspectives-a narrative review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2018; 47(4): 518–533.
23.
MackowiakP. Relief of pain from headaches and TMJ. New York: Manhattan Printing, Solomon Books, Incorporated, 1989.
24.
GonzalezSM.Cortical bone thickness in the maxilla and mandible for mini-implant placement. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa, 2008.
25.
BourdinXTrosseilleXPetitP, et al. Comparison of tetrahedral and hexahedral meshes for organ finite element modeling: an application to kidney impact. In: 20th International technical conference on the enhanced safety of vehicle, Lyon, 2007.
26.
BurkhartTAAndrewsDMDunningCE.Finite element modeling mesh quality, energy balance and validation methods: a review with recommendations associated with the modeling of bone tissue. J Biomech2013; 46(9): 1477–1488.
27.
HughesT.The finite element method: linear static and dynamic finite element analysis. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2000.
28.
LacroixDChateauAGinebraM-P, et al. Micro-finite element models of bone tissue-engineering scaffolds. Biomaterials2006; 27(30): 5326–5334.
29.
ParasharSKSharmaJK.A review on application of finite element modelling in bone biomechanics. Perspect Sci2016; 8: 696–698.
30.
RamosASimõesJA.Tetrahedral versus hexahedral finite elements in numerical modelling of the proximal femur. Med Eng Phys2006; 28(9): 916–924.
31.
HuangHLSuKCFuhLJ, et al. Biomechanical analysis of a temporomandibular joint condylar prosthesis during various clenching tasks. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2015; 43(7): 1194–1201.
32.
IchimIKieserJASwainMV.Functional significance of strain distribution in the human mandible under masticatory load: numerical predictions. Arch Oral Biol2007; 52(5): 465–473.
33.
KatranjiAMischKWangHL.Cortical bone thickness in dentate and edentulous human cadavers. J Periodontol2007; 78(5): 874–878.
34.
KimJHParkYC.Evaluation of mandibular cortical bone thickness for placement of temporary anchorage devices (TADs). Korean J Orthod2012; 42(3): 110–117.
35.
MoslemzadeSHKananizadehYNourizadehA, et al. Evaluation of cortical bone thickness of mandible with cone beam computed tomography for orthodontic mini implant installation. Adv Biosci Clin Med2014; 2(2): 64–72.
36.
RamosAMesnardMRelvasC, et al. Theoretical assessment of an intramedullary condylar component versus screw fixation for the condylar component of a hemiarthroplasty alloplastic TMJ replacement system. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2014; 42(2): 169–174.
37.
IncA.Ansys: Engineering data materials library, 2016.
38.
MesnardMRamosA.Towards a rigorous approach to designing a temporomandibular joint prosthesis. From clinical challenge to numerical prototype. Procedia CIRP2013; 5: 141–146.
39.
BraunSBantleonHPHnatWP, et al. A study of bite force, part 1: relationship to various physical characteristics. Angle Orthod1995; 65(5): 367–372.
40.
GaoXFraulobMHaïatG.Biomechanical behaviours of the bone-implant interface: a review. J R Soc Interface2019; 16(156): 20190259.
41.
GasikMLambertFBacevicM. Biomechanical properties of bone and mucosa for design and application of dental implants. Materials2021; 14(11): 2845.
42.
Robau-PorruaAGonzálezJERodríguez-GuerraJ, et al. Biomechanical behavior of a new design of dental implant: influence of the porosity and location in the maxilla. J Mater Res Technol2024; 29: 3255–3267.
43.
StanfordCM.Biomechanical and functional behavior of implants. Adv Dent Res1999; 13: 88–92.
44.
GregolinRFZavagliaCADCTokimatsuRC, et al. Biomechanical stress and strain analysis of mandibular human region from computed tomography to custom implant development. Adv Mater Sci Eng2017; 2017: 1–9.
45.
ChoiKGoldsteinSA.A comparison of the fatigue behavior of human trabecular and cortical bone tissue. J Biomech1992; 25(12): 1371–1381.
46.
CullinaneDMEinhornTA. Chapter 2 - biomechanics of bone. In: BilezikianJPRaiszLGRodanGA (eds.) Principles of bone biology, 2nd ed.San Diego: Academic Press, 2002, pp.17–32.
47.
CurreyJD.Bones: structure and mechanics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.
48.
NataliANMeroiEA.A review of the biomechanical properties of bone as a material. J Biomed Eng1989; 11(4): 266–276.
49.
LiuYFWangRBaurDA, et al. A finite element analysis of the stress distribution to the mandible from impact forces with various orientations of third molars. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B2018; 19(1): 38–48.
50.
IchimISwainMKieserJA.Mandibular biomechanics and development of the human chin. J Dent Res2006; 85(7): 638–642.
51.
RamosARelvasCMesnardM, et al. Numerical study of the mandible geometry influences using two different TMJ implants. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2009; 12(sup1): 209–210.
52.
VigneshUMehrotraDBhaveSM, et al. Finite element analysis of patient-specific TMJ implants to replace bilateral joints with simultaneous correction of facial deformity. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res2020; 10(4): 674–679.
53.
KöseS.Determination of the design criteria of temporomandibuler joint prosthesis using finite element method: self-pinned TMJ prosthesis. PhD Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, 2019.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
