Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Guest Editorial

Rationale for Patient-fitted Alloplastic Temporomandibular Joint Replacement in Childhood Ankylosis

Mommaerts, Maurice Yves

Author Information
Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery: Jan–Jun 2022 - Volume 12 - Issue 1 - p 2-4
doi: 10.4103/ams.ams_250_21
  • Open

Juvenile temporomandibular joint ankylosis leads to problems with food intake and chewing, improper oral hygiene that results in tooth decay and pain, and facial deformity (“asymmetrical bird’s face”). Surgical treatment aims to provide a painless maximum mouth opening (MMO) >30 mm, to prevent reankylosis, to allow further growth of the mandible, to ameliorate or prevent obstructive sleep apnea, to ensure proper mastication, and to improve the overall quality of life.[1]

Contemporary literature of Sawhney class III and IV ankylosis in children is still far from conclusive regarding its best treatment option. Although many therapies are available, such as gap and interpositional arthroplasty (IA) and medial pole retaining arthroplasty (MPRA), all are unpredictable in their success related to MMO, reankylosis, and facial growth. Due to the osteogenic potential in children, their rate of reankylosis is especially high, particularly after gap arthroplasty,[23] which also causes shortening of the ascending ramus and contributes to “bird face” deformity.[4] Thus, IA with or without condylar reconstruction is recommended. The latter approach has been described using dermis/fat, pinna cartilage, temporalis muscle/fascia, costal cartilage, and full-thickness skin grafts.[56]

For IA with condylar reconstruction, costochondral grafting (CCG); use of the fibula, clavicle, iliac crest, metatarsal head, metatarsal free flap, and sternoclavicular joint; autologous coronoid process transplantation; distraction osteogenesis (DO); hydroxyapatite/collagen scaffold impregnated with platelet-rich plasma; and acrylic material have been reported.[78101112] However, neither modality has produced uniformly successful results. A limited range of mandibular motion, reankylosis, and growth problems are the most commonly reported complications of IA with condylar reconstruction.[2913]

Interest in DO (boneless bone grafting)[14] has waned due to the need for a second surgery to remove hardware, technical failures (e.g., pin pullout, hardware exposure), malocclusion, facial asymmetry due to an inappropriate transport vector, reankylosis, and the long duration of treatment.[13]

CCG is prone to complications at the donor site, such as pleuritis pain, pneumothorax, and infection, while the recipient site faces risks of graft resorption, infection, fibrosis, and reankylosis.[1516] Reankylosis is described in 14%–35%[1718] of CCG recipients, partly due to the immobilization required for the bony union to occur.[19] In a systematic analysis without age restriction but with mainly pediatric reports, CCG showed the highest incidence of reankylosis among all procedures analyzed.[20] In CCG, a primary growth center is transplanted, but the growth of the graft is highly unpredictable.[21] Overgrowth is reported in 4%–30%,[4172122] undergrowth in 1%–57%,[4171822] and no growth in 1%–21%[1721] of grafts. Specifically, overcorrection of the chin with more functional stress of the muscle matrix may trigger overgrowth on the transplanted side of the face.[23]

Mehrotra etal. concluded after analyzing a series of 791 patients that sternoclavicular joint reconstruction is the treatment of choice in children with ankylosis.[9] In support of this conclusion, Thirunavukkarasu etal. reported a 10% clavicle fracture rate but otherwise complete regeneration of the joint after 1 year.[24]

A systematic review failed to demonstrate the superiority of either IA technique (with or without condylar reconstruction) with respect to MMO[6] and could not investigate alloplastic replacement.

MPRA results in more normal mandibular growth than CCG.[25262728] In this approach, the residual disk is reused and condylar reconstruction is not required, although MPRA can only be attempted in Sawhney Class III ankylosis, which usually only occurs in adolescence.

Alloplastic total joint replacement (ATJR), a type of IA with condylar reconstruction, has become the main standard of care, especially in adults, when no financial constraints are present.[1] ATJR is considered more effective than CCG, especially after multiple surgical procedures that have compromised wound bed vascularity.[29] Potential advantages of using a patient-fitted ATJR in children include mimicking normal anatomy and restoring vertical facial dimension. The lateral open bite does not need to be obliterated by an occlusal splint, which allows rescue of maxillary alveolar growth, and donor site morbidity is avoided. The patient has a reduced risk for reankylosis, can endure immediate aggressive physiotherapy and will not experience over-or undergrowth or graft fracture.[1233031] With ATJR, one can avoid a series of surgeries in childhood, as in the case described by Wu etal., which involved tracheostomy, DO, gap arthroplasty with temporal muscle interpositioning,[3233] CCG, and finally, ATJR in a child with Nager syndrome.[34]

Only two limitations of ATJR during childhood are apparent. The currently available ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene will likely need to be replaced every 20 years.[632] In addition, heterotopic bone formation occurs in 50% of post-ATJR adults,[35] although autologous fat packing can fence-off this adverse event.[353637]

An unwarranted concern related to ATJR may be that “growth at the affected joint will be restricted because alloplastic material cannot grow.” This concern must be weighed against the rates of reankylosis and growth problems experienced by IA patients and the benefit of resumed mandibular growth once ankylosis is permanently resolved and function is preserved by physiotherapy after ATJR. Indeed, function dictates form and it has been demonstrated that the mandibular body resumes normal growth even with an absent primary growth center.[38] Moreover, the psychosocial benefit of the immediate normalization of the child’s face in a single operation should be considered. The same strategy has been employed by the author for the reconstruction of lateral skull base and vertical ramus compartment of Pruzansky Kaban Class IIb and III hemifacial microsomia cases [Figures 1 and 2].

F1
Figure 1:
Reconstruction of the left-sided temporomandibular joint in a case of Pruzansky Kaban Class III hemifacial microsomia with the use of autologous costochondral and cranial bone grafts. (a) Postoperative three-dimensional computerized tomography of the craniofacial skeleton. Note the under-correction of the mandibular reconstruction to avoid graft overgrowth.[23] Three-quarter submentovertical view. The cartilage graft under the bone lid (grayish) replacing the fossa is not visible. (b) Postoperative three-dimensional computerized tomography of the craniofacial skeleton. Three-quarter posterolateral view. The cartilage cap on the costochondral grafting is not visible
F2
Figure 2:
Renders of a reconstruction of the left-sided temporomandibular joint in a case of Pruzansky Kaban Class IIb hemifacial microsomia using alloplastic total joint replacement. Ascending ramus height correction and symphyseal/dental midline overcorrection are obvious. Maxillary alveolar growth during tooth eruption will close the open bite. (a) Three-quarter submentovertical view. (b) Three-quarter posterolateral view

REFERENCES

1. Roychoudhury A, Yadav P, Bhutia O, Mane R, Yadav R, Goswami D, et al. Alloplastic total joint replacement in management of temporomandibular joint ankylosis J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2021 11 457 65
2. Chen S, He Y, An JG, Zhang Y Recurrence-related factors of temporomandibular joint ankylosis:A 10-year experience J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019 77 2512 21
3. Kaban LB, Bouchard C, Troulis MJ A protocol for management of temporomandibular joint ankylosis in children J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009 67 1966 78
4. Lakshmanan S, Roychoudhury A, Bhutia O, Yadav R, Bhatt K, Pandey RM Can costochondral grafts fulfil ramus-condyle unit reconstruction goals in children with temporomandibular joint ankylosis?Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021 59 184 90
5. Karamese M, Duymaz A, Seyhan N, Keskin M, Tosun Z Management of temporomandibular joint ankylosis with temporalis fascia flap and fat graft J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013 41 789 93
6. De Roo N, Van Doorne L, Troch A, Vermeersch H, Brusselaers N Quantifying the outcome of surgical treatment of temporomandibular joint ankylosis:A systematic review and meta-analysis J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016 44 6 15
7. Olivetto M, Bettoni J, Testelin S, DakpéS, Devauchelle B Second metatarsal free transfer in total temporomandibular joint reconstruction for ankylosis in a child:10-year follow-up Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021 50 610 4
8. Bansal V, Singh S, Garg N, Dubey P Transport distraction osteogenesis as a method of reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint following gap arthroplasty for post-traumatic ankylosis in children:A clinical and radiological prospective assessment of outcome Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014 43 227 36
9. Mehrotra D, Pradhan R, Mohammad S, Kumar S Complications associated with different surgical procedures for management of temporomandibular ankylosis in a series of 791 cases Asian J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011 23 122 7
10. Mehrotra D, Kumar S, Dhasmana S Hydroxyapatite/collagen block with platelet rich plasma in temporomandibular joint ankylosis:A pilot study in children and adolescents Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012 50 774 8
11. Yang YT, Li YF, Jiang N, Bi RY, Zhu SS Grafts of autogenous coronoid process to reconstruct the mandibular condyle in children with unilateral ankylosis of the temporomandibular joint:Long-term effects on mandibular growth Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018 56 107 12
12. Freddo A, Longoni C, Nora G, Ponzoni D, Corsetti A, Puricelli E Reconstruction of temporomandibular joint for ankylosis treatment in a pediatric patient:Surgical technique and reconstruction with aloplastic material Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019 48 280
13. Schlund M, Touzet-Roumazeille S, Nicot R, Ferri J Temporomandibular joint ankylosis following mandibular distraction osteogenesis:A dreadful complication J Craniofac Surg 2020 31 222 5
14. Ma Y, Huang Y, Zhu S, Li Y Simultaneous arthroplasty and distraction osteogenesis for the treatment of ankylosis of the temporomandibular joint and secondary mandibular deformities in children Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019 57 135 9
15. Lei Z Auricular cartilage graft interposition after temporomandibular joint ankylosis surgery in children J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002 60 985 7
16. Fowell C, Smith N, Williams R Paediatric temporomandibular joint ankylosis –Experience and difficulties in management Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016 53 E126
17. Awal DH, Jaffer M, Charan G, Ball RE, Kennedy G, Thomas S, et al. Costochondral grafting for paediatric temporomandibular joint reconstruction:10-year outcomes in 55 cases Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018 47 1433 8
18. Zhao J, He D, Yang C, Lu C, Hu Y, Huang D, et al. 3-D computed tomography measurement of mandibular growth after costochondral grafting in growing children with temporomandibular joint ankylosis and jaw deformity Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017 124 333 8
19. Matsuura H, Miyamoto H, Ishimaru J, Kurita K, Goss AN Effect of partial immobilization on reconstruction of ankylosis of the temporomandibular joint with an autogenous costochondral graft:An experimental study in sheep Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001 39 196 203
20. Mohanty S, Verma A Ankylosis management with autogenous grafts:A systematic review J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2021 11 402 9
21. Balaji SM, Balaji P Overgrowth of costochondral graft in temporomandibular joint ankylosis reconstruction:A retrospective study Indian J Dent Res 2017 28 169 74
22. Kumar P, Rattan V, Rai S Do costochondral grafts have any growth potential in temporomandibular joint surgery?A systematic review J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2015 5 198 202
23. Yadav P, Roychoudhury A, Bhutia O, Kaur K, Balachandran R Does no-intraoperative correction of chin deviation prevent costochondral graft overgrowth in pediatric temporomandibular joint ankylosis management –An intermediate outcome study J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2021 11 541 3
24. Thirunavukkarasu R, Balasubramaniam S, Balasubramanian S, Gopalakrishnan SK, Panchanathan S Sternoclavicular joint graft in temporomandibular joint reconstruction for ankylosis Ann Maxillofac Surg 2018 8 292 8
25. He D, Lu C Evaluation of the condyle remodelling after lateral arthroplasty in growing children with temporomandibular joint ankylosis valuation of the condyle remodelling after lateral arthroplasty in growing Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017 46 81 2
26. Yang X, Lu C, Dong M, He D, Yang C, Hu Y Evaluation of the condyle remodeling after lateral arthroplasty in growing children with temporomandibular joint ankylosis Sci Rep 2017 7 9922
27. Kurasawa Y, Yoshitake H, Tomomatsu N, Yoda T Long-term follow-up after arthroplasty for pediatric temporomandibular joint ankylosis performed before the critical period of mandibular growth:A case report Int J Surg Case Rep 2021 86 106330
28. Xia L, He Y, An J, Chen S, Zhang Y Condyle-preserved arthroplasty versus costochondral grafting in paediatric temporomandibular joint ankylosis:A retrospective investigation Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019 48 526 33
29. Mercuri LG Costochondral graft versus total alloplastic joint for temporomandibular joint reconstruction Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2018 30 335 42
30. Al-Moraissi EA, El-Sharkawy TM, Mounair RM, El-Ghareeb TI A systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical outcomes for various surgical modalities in the management of temporomandibular joint ankylosis Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015 44 470 82
31. Basu I, Wright H, Mills C The management of paediatric temporomandibular joint ankylosis –5 year outcomes Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019 57 E88
32. De Meurechy N, Aktan MK, Boeckmans B, Huys S, Verwilghen DR, Braem A, et al. Surface wear in a custom manufactured temporomandibular joint prosthesis J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2022 PMID:35088936 [Epub ahead of print]. [doi:10.1002/jbm.b. 35010]
33. Balaji SM Modified temporalis anchorage in craniomandibular reankylosis Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003 32 480 5
34. Wu CC, Sakahara D, Imai K Ankylosis of temporomandibular joints after mandibular distraction osteogenesis in patients with Nager syndrome:Report of two cases and literature review J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017 70 1449 56
35. Roychoudhury A, Acharya S, Bhutia O, Seith Bhalla A, Manchanda S, Pandey RM Is there a difference in volumetric change and effectiveness comparing pedicled buccal fat pad and abdominal fat when used as interpositional arthroplasty in the treatment of temporomandibular joint ankylosis? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020 78 1100 10
36. Lindqvist C, Söderholm AL, Hallikainen D, Sjövall L Erosion and heterotopic bone formation after alloplastic temporomandibular joint reconstruction J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992 50 942 9
37. Van Bogaert W, De Meurechy N, Mommaerts MY Autologous fat grafting in total temporomandibular joint replacement surgery Ann Maxillofac Surg 2018 8 299 302
38. Farmand M, Mommaerts M, Teuscher U Facial growth after treatment of unilateral temporomandibular joint ankylosis in childhood without growth centre transplantation. A serial cephalomorphometric study J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1989 17 260 70
Copyright: © 2022 Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery