To ensure the long-term success of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants, it is imperative to understand their biomechanical performances. This study aims to compare the biomechanical performance of two stock implants (narrow and standard) under unilateral and bilateral clenching during both osseointegrated and non-osseointegrated conditions. Finite element models of a human mandible were developed from QCT data, with the left TMJ being replaced by the implants. Six clenching tasks were simulated to evaluate stress and strain distributions in the mandible and implants. Ipsilateral clenching produced higher mandibular strains, while contralateral clenching generated larger implant stresses. Furthermore, intercuspal biting was found to have produced the highest strain (1750–1880 µε) and stress (∼17 MPa) in the mandible. Osseointegration reduced stresses (up to 0.14 MPa) and strains (up to 30 µε) in mandible as well as stresses in mandibular components (up to 48 MPa) and screws (up to 71 MPa). However, during non-osseointegrated conditions, stresses in cortical bone were higher for standard TMJ implant as compared to narrow implant. This suggests possible preference of narrow implant over standard ones.
RoychoudhuryAYadavPBhutiaO, et al. Alloplastic total joint replacement in management of temporomandibular joint ankylosis. J Oral Biol Craniofacial Res. 2021; 11(3): 457–465. DOI:10.1016/j.jobcr.2021.05.006.
2.
BhattKRoychoudhuryABhutiaO, et al. Functional outcomes of gap and interposition arthroplasty in the treatment of temporomandibular joint ankylosis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 72(12): 2434–2439. DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2014.08.012.
3.
YodaTOgiNYoshitakeH, et al. Clinical guidelines for total temporomandibular joint replacement. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2020; 56(1): 77–83. DOI:10.1016/j.jdsr.2020.03.001.
KanatsiosSBreikODimitroulisG.Biomet stock temporomandibular joint prosthesis: long-term outcomes of the use of titanium condyles secured with four or five condylar fixation screws. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2018; 46(10): 1697–1702. DOI:10.1016/j.jcms.2018.07.002.
6.
GiannakopoulosHESinnDPQuinnPD.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(4): 787–794. DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2011.09.031.
7.
KerwellSAlfaroMPourzalR, et al. Examination of failed retrieved temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants. Acta Biomater. 2016; 32: 324–335. DOI:10.1016/j.actbio.2016.01.001.
8.
FerreiraJNARKoCCMyersS, et al. Evaluation of surgically retrieved temporomandibular joint alloplastic implants: pilot study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 66(6): 1112–1124. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2007.09.013.
9.
MercuriLG.Temporomandibular joint replacement devices - dark past to challenging future. Stomatol Dis Sci. 2019; 2019: 25. DOI:10.20517/2573-0002.2018.25.
10.
WolfordLMPittaMCReiche-FischelO, et al. TMJ concepts/techmedia custom-made TMJ total joint prosthesis: 5-year follow-up study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003; 32(3): 268–274. DOI:10.1054/ijom.2002.0350.
11.
ZouLHeDEllisE.A comparison of clinical follow-up of different total temporomandibular joint replacement prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 76(2): 294–303. DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2017.08.022.
12.
KoriothTWPRomillyDPHannamAG.Three-dimensional finite element stress analysis of the dentate human mandible. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1992; 88(1): 69–96. DOI:10.1002/ajpa.1330880107.
GröningFFaganMJO’HigginsP.The effects of the periodontal ligament on mandibular stiffness: a study combining finite element analysis and geometric morphometrics. J Biomech. 2011; 44(7): 1304–1312. DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.01.008.
16.
GröningFFaganMO’higginsP.Comparing the distribution of strains with the distribution of bone tissue in a human mandible: a finite element study. Anat Rec. 2013; 296(1): 9–18. DOI:10.1002/ar.22597.
17.
ChoiAHBen-NissanBConwayRC.Three-dimensional modelling and finite element analysis of the human mandible during clenching. Aust Dent J. 2005; 50(1): 42–48. DOI:10.1111/j.1834-7819.2005.tb00084.x.
18.
HartRTHennebelVVThongpredaN, et al. Modeling the biomechanics of the mandible: a three-dimensional finite element study. J Biomech. 1992; 25(3): 261–286. DOI:10.1016/0021-9290(92)90025-V.
19.
DuttaAMukherjeeKSeesalaVS, et al. Comparative evaluation of a patient-specific customised plate designs and screws for partial mandibular reconstruction. Med Eng Phys. 2023; 111: 103941. DOI:10.1016/j.medengphy.2022.103941.
20.
KashiAChowdhuryARSahaS.Finite element analysis of a TMJ implant. J Dent Res. 2010; 89(3): 241–245. DOI:10.1177/0022034509357716.
21.
HuoJDérandPRännarLE, et al. Failure location prediction by finite element analysis for an additive manufactured mandible implant. Med Eng Phys. 2015; 37(9): 862–869. DOI:10.1016/j.medengphy.2015.06.001.
22.
MesnardMRamosA.Experimental and numerical predictions of Biomet® alloplastic implant in a cadaveric mandibular ramus. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2016; 44(5): 608–615. DOI:10.1016/j.jcms.2016.02.004.
23.
BekciogluBBulutEBasB.The effects of unilateral alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement on the opposite-side natural joint: a finite-element analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 75(11): 2316–2322. DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2017.05.017.
24.
PinheiroMWillaertRKhanA, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of the human mandible after temporomandibular joint replacement under different biting conditions. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1): 1–12. DOI:10.1038/s41598-021-93564-3.
25.
IngawaleSMGoswamiT.Design and finite element analysis of patient-specific total temporomandibular joint implants. Materials. 2022; 15(12): 4342. DOI:10.3390/ma15124342.
26.
GuptaADuttaADuttaK, et al. Biomechanical influence of plate configurations on mandible subcondylar fracture fixation: a finite element study. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2023; 61(10): 2581–2591. DOI:10.1007/s11517-023-02854-7.
27.
RufPOrassiVFischerH, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of CAD/CAM magnesium miniplates as a fixation strategy for the treatment of segmental mandibular reconstruction with a fibula free flap. Comput Biol Med. 2024; 168: 107817. DOI:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107817.
28.
MukherjeeKGuptaS.Bone ingrowth around porous-coated acetabular implant: a three-dimensional finite element study using mechanoregulatory algorithm. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2016; 15(2): 389–403. DOI:10.1007/s10237-015-0696-7.
29.
NiroomandMRArabbeikiM.Implant stability in different implantation stages: analysis of various interface conditions. Informatics Med Unlocked. 2020; 19: 100317. DOI:10.1016/j.imu.2020.100317.
30.
MehboobHAhmadFTarlochanF, et al. A comprehensive analysis of bio-inspired design of femoral stem on primary and secondary stabilities using mechanoregulatory algorithm. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2020; 19(6): 2213–2226. DOI:10.1007/s10237-020-01334-3.
31.
GhoshRChandaSChakrabortyD.Qualitative predictions of bone growth over optimally designed macro-textured implant surfaces obtained using NN-GA based machine learning framework. Med Eng Phys. 2021; 95: 64–75. DOI:10.1016/j.medengphy.2021.08.002.
32.
GhoshRHazraAChandaS, et al. Computational assessment of growth of connective tissues around textured hip stem subjected to daily activities after THA. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2023; 61(2): 525–540. DOI:10.1007/s11517-022-02729-3.
HijaziLHejaziWDarwichMA, et al. Finite element analysis of stress distribution on the mandible and condylar fracture osteosynthesis during various clenching tasks. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 20(4): 359–367. DOI:10.1007/s10006-016-0573-2.
35.
PalBGuptaSNewAM.A numerical study of failure mechanisms in the cemented resurfaced femur: effects of interface characteristics and bone remodelling. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H J Eng Med. 2009; 223(4): 471–484. DOI:10.1243/09544119JEIM488.
36.
PalBGuptaS and New AMR. Design considerations for ceramic resurfaced femoral head: Effect of interface characteristics on failure mechanisms. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2010; 13(2): 143–155. DOI:10.1080/10255840903067064.
37.
BakhtiariHNouriAKhakbizM, et al. Acta biomaterialia fatigue behaviour of load-bearing polymeric bone scaffolds: a review. Acta Biomat. 2023; 172: 16–37. DOI:10.1016/j.actbio.2023.09.048.
38.
FanRLiuJJiaZ.Biomechanical evaluation of different strain judging criteria on the prediction precision of cortical bone fracture simulation under compression. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023; 11: 1–9. DOI:10.3389/fbioe.2023.1168783.
39.
SchileoEDall’AraETaddeiF, et al. An accurate estimation of bone density improves the accuracy of subject-specific finite element models. J Biomech. 2008; 41(11): 2483–2491. DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.05.017.
40.
MeyerCKahnJLBoutemiP, et al. Photoelastic analysis of bone deformation in the region of the mandibular condyle during mastication. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2002; 30(3): 160–169. DOI:10.1054/jcms.2002.0297.
41.
FarooqMUMughalMPAhmedN, et al. On the investigation of surface integrity of Ti6Al4V ELI using si-mixed electric discharge machining. Materials. 2020; 13(7): 1549. DOI:10.3390/ma13071549.
42.
ClaesLEHeigeleCA.Magnitudes of local stress and strain along bony surfaces predict the course and type of fracture healing. J Biomech. 1999; 32(3): 255–266. DOI:10.1016/S0021-9290(98)00153-5.
van LoonJPde BontLGMSpijkervetFKL, et al. A short-term study in sheep with the Groningen temporomandibular joint prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000; 29(5): 315–324. DOI:10.1034/j.1399-0020.2000.290501.x.
45.
SugiuraTHoriuchiKSugimuraM, et al. Evaluation of threshold stress for bone resorption around screws based on in vivo strain measurement of miniplate. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2000; 1(2): 165–170. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15758514
46.
SopherRSAmisAACalderJD, et al. Total ankle replacement design and positioning affect implant-bone micromotion and bone strains. Med Eng Phys. 2017; 42: 80–90. DOI:10.1016/j.medengphy.2017.01.022.
47.
GhoshRChandaSChakrabortyD.The influence of macro-textural designs over implant surface on bone on-growth: a computational mechanobiology based study. Comput Biol Med. 2020; 124: 103937. DOI:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.103937.
48.
InzanaJAVargaPWindolfM.Implicit modeling of screw threads for efficient finite element analysis of complex bone-implant systems. J Biomech. 2016; 49(9): 1836–1844. DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.04.021.
