| People | Locations | Statistics |
|---|---|---|
| Naji, M. |
| |
| Motta, Antonella |
| |
| Aletan, Dirar |
| |
| Mohamed, Tarek |
| |
| Ertürk, Emre |
| |
| Taccardi, Nicola |
| |
| Kononenko, Denys |
| |
| Petrov, R. H. | Madrid |
|
| Alshaaer, Mazen | Brussels |
|
| Bih, L. |
| |
| Casati, R. |
| |
| Muller, Hermance |
| |
| Kočí, Jan | Prague |
|
| Šuljagić, Marija |
| |
| Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-Artemi | Brussels |
|
| Azam, Siraj |
| |
| Ospanova, Alyiya |
| |
| Blanpain, Bart |
| |
| Ali, M. A. |
| |
| Popa, V. |
| |
| Rančić, M. |
| |
| Ollier, Nadège |
| |
| Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro |
| |
| Landes, Michael |
| |
| Rignanese, Gian-Marco |
|
Wach, Tomasz
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (1/1 displayed)
Places of action
| Organizations | Location | People |
|---|
article
Two different techniques of manufacturing TMJ replacements - a technical report
Abstract
Introduction: Presently, during the surgical treatment of the patients in maxillofacial surgery, one can use various medical implants. Moreover custom made implants are being used. Replacements may be fitted to the structure and shape of the human skull owing to CAD/CAM (custom aided design/manufacture) called customized implants. This study was aimed to report for the first time clinical material from which custom implants, using two different techniques, were manufactured to reconstruct the temporomandibular joint (TMJ).Material and methods: In this study, eleven patients with an average age of 54 years were included. All of the patients underwent TMJ reconstruction using direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) or computer numerical control milling (CNC) techniques for implant manufacture. Four of the eleven patients had a malignancy diagnosis, and seven had a benign diagnosis. Patients complained of hypomobility of the TMJ, facial asymmetry, pain and swelling of the preauricular region. Treatment included 7 CNC milled implants and 4 implants in DMLS.Results: More metallic implant parts with a rough surface were associated with the DMLS technique. Post operational, uneventful healing was observed in all clinical cases during an average of 26.8 months of follow-up. Three months post-operation, facial nerve palsy, swallowing disturbances and pain were not observed. Infections, allergic reactions to materials and re-ankylosis were also not observed. Replacements received correct forms and functions owing to the CAM techniques. Post-operational maximal interincisal opening improved (p < 0.01) and was not significantly related to preoperational opening, age, sex, diagnosis or adjuvant radiotherapy.Conclusion: Considering both methods, the feature that differentiates the manufacture technique is the more subtractive surface finishing required for the DMLS implant than the CNC implant. Both techniques resulted the same clinical outcomes and can be used successfully in patients with neoplastic lesions and other TMJ disorders. Unfortunately, DMLS is more vulnerable to fracture.