Comparison of the outcomes of three surgical treatments for end-stage temporomandibular joint disease.
Identifieur interne : 000B45 ( PubMed/Corpus ); précédent : 000B44; suivant : 000B46Comparison of the outcomes of three surgical treatments for end-stage temporomandibular joint disease.
Auteurs : G. DimitroulisSource :
- International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery [ 1399-0020 ] ; 2014.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Joint Prosthesis, Male, Mandibular Condyle (surgery), Middle Aged, Orthognathic Surgical Procedures (methods), Quality of Life, Retrospective Studies, Ribs (transplantation), Surveys and Questionnaires, Temporomandibular Joint Disorders (surgery), Treatment Outcome.
- MESH :
- methods : Orthognathic Surgical Procedures.
- surgery : Mandibular Condyle, Temporomandibular Joint Disorders.
- transplantation : Ribs.
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Joint Prosthesis, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Retrospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Treatment Outcome.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether there are any differences between condylectomy, rib grafts, and prosthetic joints (Biomet TMJ stock prosthesis) with regard to outcomes for patients with end-stage temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disease. Fifty-six of a total 127 patients who presented with category 5 end-stage TMJ disease over 3 years (2010-2013) agreed to participate in this retrospective, comparative, cohort study. Patients were divided into four groups: preoperative (n=16), condylectomy (n=8), rib graft (n=16), and prosthetic joint (n=16). They were assessed for major postoperative complications (i.e., return to theatre) and maximum range of mandibular motion, and all completed a specific quality of life (QOL) questionnaire. Whilst the condylectomy group demonstrated the best mandibular range of motion (P<0.01), rib graft patients were more likely to experience complications (43.8%) necessitating a return to theatre. The prosthesis group recorded the best mean aggregate QOL score, but the difference compared to the rib graft and condylectomy groups was not statistically significant. The results of this study suggest that for dentate patients, prosthetic joints are highly dependable with no returns to theatre and favourable QOL outcomes. For edentulous patients, condylectomies alone also appear to work well. Future TMJ prosthetic designs should focus on improving mandibular range of motion, as the current stock prosthesis allows only a restricted range, no better than that achieved with rib graft (P>0.05) and far less than that achieved with condylectomy (P<0.01).
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.02.004
PubMed: 24629849
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:24629849Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Comparison of the outcomes of three surgical treatments for end-stage temporomandibular joint disease.</title><author><name sortKey="Dimitroulis, G" sort="Dimitroulis, G" uniqKey="Dimitroulis G" first="G" last="Dimitroulis">G. Dimitroulis</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Maxillofacial Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: geodim25@gmail.com.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="2014">2014</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:24629849</idno><idno type="pmid">24629849</idno><idno type="doi">10.1016/j.ijom.2014.02.004</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">000B45</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">000B45</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Comparison of the outcomes of three surgical treatments for end-stage temporomandibular joint disease.</title><author><name sortKey="Dimitroulis, G" sort="Dimitroulis, G" uniqKey="Dimitroulis G" first="G" last="Dimitroulis">G. Dimitroulis</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Maxillofacial Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: geodim25@gmail.com.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><series><title level="j">International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</title><idno type="eISSN">1399-0020</idno><imprint><date when="2014" type="published">2014</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Adult</term><term>Aged</term><term>Aged, 80 and over</term><term>Female</term><term>Humans</term><term>Joint Prosthesis</term><term>Male</term><term>Mandibular Condyle (surgery)</term><term>Middle Aged</term><term>Orthognathic Surgical Procedures (methods)</term><term>Quality of Life</term><term>Retrospective Studies</term><term>Ribs (transplantation)</term><term>Surveys and Questionnaires</term><term>Temporomandibular Joint Disorders (surgery)</term><term>Treatment Outcome</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="methods" xml:lang="en"><term>Orthognathic Surgical Procedures</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="surgery" xml:lang="en"><term>Mandibular Condyle</term><term>Temporomandibular Joint Disorders</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="transplantation" xml:lang="en"><term>Ribs</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Adult</term><term>Aged</term><term>Aged, 80 and over</term><term>Female</term><term>Humans</term><term>Joint Prosthesis</term><term>Male</term><term>Middle Aged</term><term>Quality of Life</term><term>Retrospective Studies</term><term>Surveys and Questionnaires</term><term>Treatment Outcome</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">The aim of this study was to determine whether there are any differences between condylectomy, rib grafts, and prosthetic joints (Biomet TMJ stock prosthesis) with regard to outcomes for patients with end-stage temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disease. Fifty-six of a total 127 patients who presented with category 5 end-stage TMJ disease over 3 years (2010-2013) agreed to participate in this retrospective, comparative, cohort study. Patients were divided into four groups: preoperative (n=16), condylectomy (n=8), rib graft (n=16), and prosthetic joint (n=16). They were assessed for major postoperative complications (i.e., return to theatre) and maximum range of mandibular motion, and all completed a specific quality of life (QOL) questionnaire. Whilst the condylectomy group demonstrated the best mandibular range of motion (P<0.01), rib graft patients were more likely to experience complications (43.8%) necessitating a return to theatre. The prosthesis group recorded the best mean aggregate QOL score, but the difference compared to the rib graft and condylectomy groups was not statistically significant. The results of this study suggest that for dentate patients, prosthetic joints are highly dependable with no returns to theatre and favourable QOL outcomes. For edentulous patients, condylectomies alone also appear to work well. Future TMJ prosthetic designs should focus on improving mandibular range of motion, as the current stock prosthesis allows only a restricted range, no better than that achieved with rib graft (P>0.05) and far less than that achieved with condylectomy (P<0.01).</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">24629849</PMID><DateCompleted><Year>2015</Year><Month>04</Month><Day>09</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2015</Year><Month>11</Month><Day>19</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Print-Electronic"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Electronic">1399-0020</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet"><Volume>43</Volume><Issue>8</Issue><PubDate><Year>2014</Year><Month>Aug</Month></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</Title><ISOAbbreviation>Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Comparison of the outcomes of three surgical treatments for end-stage temporomandibular joint disease.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>980-9</MedlinePgn></Pagination><ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.1016/j.ijom.2014.02.004</ELocationID><ELocationID EIdType="pii" ValidYN="Y">S0901-5027(14)00065-4</ELocationID><Abstract><AbstractText>The aim of this study was to determine whether there are any differences between condylectomy, rib grafts, and prosthetic joints (Biomet TMJ stock prosthesis) with regard to outcomes for patients with end-stage temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disease. Fifty-six of a total 127 patients who presented with category 5 end-stage TMJ disease over 3 years (2010-2013) agreed to participate in this retrospective, comparative, cohort study. Patients were divided into four groups: preoperative (n=16), condylectomy (n=8), rib graft (n=16), and prosthetic joint (n=16). They were assessed for major postoperative complications (i.e., return to theatre) and maximum range of mandibular motion, and all completed a specific quality of life (QOL) questionnaire. Whilst the condylectomy group demonstrated the best mandibular range of motion (P<0.01), rib graft patients were more likely to experience complications (43.8%) necessitating a return to theatre. The prosthesis group recorded the best mean aggregate QOL score, but the difference compared to the rib graft and condylectomy groups was not statistically significant. The results of this study suggest that for dentate patients, prosthetic joints are highly dependable with no returns to theatre and favourable QOL outcomes. For edentulous patients, condylectomies alone also appear to work well. Future TMJ prosthetic designs should focus on improving mandibular range of motion, as the current stock prosthesis allows only a restricted range, no better than that achieved with rib graft (P>0.05) and far less than that achieved with condylectomy (P<0.01).</AbstractText><CopyrightInformation>Copyright © 2014 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</CopyrightInformation></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Dimitroulis</LastName><ForeName>G</ForeName><Initials>G</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Maxillofacial Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: geodim25@gmail.com.</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D003160">Comparative Study</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList><ArticleDate DateType="Electronic"><Year>2014</Year><Month>03</Month><Day>12</Day></ArticleDate></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>Denmark</Country><MedlineTA>Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>8605826</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>0901-5027</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><CitationSubset>D</CitationSubset><CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000328" MajorTopicYN="N">Adult</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000368" MajorTopicYN="N">Aged</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000369" MajorTopicYN="N">Aged, 80 and over</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005260" MajorTopicYN="N">Female</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006801" MajorTopicYN="N">Humans</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D007595" MajorTopicYN="Y">Joint Prosthesis</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008297" MajorTopicYN="N">Male</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008335" MajorTopicYN="N">Mandibular Condyle</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000601" MajorTopicYN="Y">surgery</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008875" MajorTopicYN="N">Middle Aged</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D056948" MajorTopicYN="N">Orthognathic Surgical Procedures</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="Y">methods</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D011788" MajorTopicYN="N">Quality of Life</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D012189" MajorTopicYN="N">Retrospective Studies</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D012272" MajorTopicYN="N">Ribs</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000637" MajorTopicYN="Y">transplantation</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D011795" MajorTopicYN="N">Surveys and Questionnaires</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D013705" MajorTopicYN="N">Temporomandibular Joint Disorders</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000601" MajorTopicYN="Y">surgery</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D016896" MajorTopicYN="N">Treatment Outcome</DescriptorName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList><KeywordList Owner="NOTNLM"><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">TMJ prosthesis</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">condylectomy</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">osteoarthritis</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">rib graft</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">temporomandibular joint</Keyword></KeywordList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="received"><Year>2013</Year><Month>08</Month><Day>12</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="revised"><Year>2014</Year><Month>01</Month><Day>14</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="accepted"><Year>2014</Year><Month>02</Month><Day>18</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2014</Year><Month>3</Month><Day>18</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2014</Year><Month>3</Month><Day>19</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2015</Year><Month>4</Month><Day>10</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">24629849</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pii">S0901-5027(14)00065-4</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1016/j.ijom.2014.02.004</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></PubmedData></pubmed></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV1/Data/PubMed/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000B45 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000B45 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV1
|flux= PubMed
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:24629849
|texte= Comparison of the outcomes of three surgical treatments for end-stage temporomandibular joint disease.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:24629849" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a EdenteV1
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. |  |