Mandibular Kinematics and Maximum Voluntary Bite Force Following Segmental Resection of the Mandible Without or with Reconstruction

Overview

Journal Clin Oral Investig

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2017 Nov 9

PMID 29116495

Citations 5

Authors

Sabine S Linsen

Annina Oikonomou

Markus Martini

Marcus Teschke

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose was to analyze mandibular kinematics and maximum voluntary bite force in patients following segmental resection of the mandible without and with reconstruction (autologous bone, alloplastic total temporomandibular joint replacement (TMJ TJR)).

Materials And Methods: Subjects operated from April 2002 to August 2014 were enrolled in the study. Condylar (CRoM) and incisal (InRoM) range of motion and deflection during opening, condylar retrusion, incisal lateral excursion, mandibular rotation angle during opening, and maximum voluntary bite force were determined on the non-affected site and compared between groups. Influence of co-factors (defect size, soft tissue deficit, neck dissection, radiotherapy, occlusal contact zones (OCZ), and time) was determined.

Results: Twelve non-reconstructed and 26 reconstructed patients (13 autologous, 13 TMJ TJR) were included in the study. InRoM opening and bite force were significantly higher (P ≤ .024), and both condylar and incisal deflection during opening significantly lower (P ≤ .027) in reconstructed patients compared with non-reconstructed. Differences between the autologous and the TMJ TJR group were statistically not significant. Co-factors defect size, soft tissue deficit, and neck dissection had the greatest impact on kinematics and number of OCZs on bite force.

Conclusions: Reconstructed patients (both autologous and TMJ TJR) have better overall function than non-reconstructed patients.

Clinical Relevance: Reconstruction of segmental mandibular resection has positive effects on mandibular function. TMJ TJR seems to be a suitable technique for the reconstruction of mandibular defects including the TMJ complex.

Citing Articles

Han X, Hattori M, Sumita Y, Haraguchi M, Wakabayashi N J Clin Med. 2024; 13(7).

PMID: 38610691 PMC: 11012922. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13071926.

Use of customized 3-dimensional printed mandibular prostheses with a dental implant pressure-reducing device in mandibular body defect: A finite element study performing multiresponse surface methodology.

Chen C, Huang W, Liu S, Wang L, Liu P, Chen P J Dent Sci. 2024; 19(1):502-514.

PMID: 38303793 PMC: 10829725. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2023.09.011.

Clinical and Technical Validation of Novel Bite Force Measuring Device for Functional Analysis after Mandibular Reconstruction.

Steffen C, Duda K, Wulsten D, Voss J, Koerdt S, Nahles S Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(4).

PMID: 36832074 PMC: 9955263. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13040586.

Impact of pivoting bite tip on bite force measurement tests.

Santiago Jr O, Cruz R, da Cunha T, Lacerda R, Ferreira M, Huebner R Clin Oral Investig. 2023; 27(6):2993-3000.

PMID: 36781476 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-04901-x.

The Use of Customized Three-Dimensionally Printed Mandible Prostheses with a Pressure-Reducing Device: A Finite Element Analysis in Different Chewing Positions, Biomechanical Testing, and In Vivo Animal Study Using Lanyu Pigs.

Chen C, Chen C, Chen H, Huang W, Chen Y, Chang H Biomed Res Int. 2022; 2022:9880454.

PMID: 35342763 PMC: 8942632. DOI: 10.1155/2022/9880454.

References

Komisar A . The functional result of mandibular reconstruction. Laryngoscope. 1990; 100(4):364-74. DOI: 10.1288/00005537-199004000-00007. View

Cantor R, CURTIS T . Prosthetic management of edentulous mandibulectomy patients. I. Anatomic, physiologic, and psychologic considerations. J Prosthet Dent. 1971; 25(4):446-57. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(71)90236-8. View

Westermark A, Heden P, Aagaard E, Cornelius C . The use of TMJ Concepts prostheses to reconstruct patients with major temporomandibular joint and mandibular defects. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 40(5):487-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.12.007. View

Gerlach K, Schwarz A . Bite forces in patients after treatment of mandibular angle fractures with miniplate osteosynthesis according to Champy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002; 31(4):345-8. DOI: 10.1054/ijom.2002.0290. View

van Gemert J, Holtslag I, van der Bilt A, Merkx M, Koole R, Van Cann E . Health-related quality of life after segmental resection of the lateral mandible: Free fibula flap versus plate reconstruction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015; 43(5):658-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.03.018. View

Lewis R, Buschang P, Throckmorton G . Sex differences in mandibular movements during opening and closing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001; 120(3):294-303. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2001.115612. View

Curtis D, Plesh O, Miller A, CURTIS T, Sharma A, Schweitzer R . A comparison of masticatory function in patients with or without reconstruction of the mandible. Head Neck. 1997; 19(4):287-96. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0347(199707)19:4<287::aid-hed7>3.0.co;2-x. View

Chiapasco M, Romeo E, Coggiola A, Brusati R . Long-term outcome of dental implants placed in revascularized fibula free flaps used for the reconstruction of maxillo-mandibular defects due to extreme atrophy. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 22(1):83-91. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01999.x. View

Dimitroulis G . Comparison of the outcomes of three surgical treatments for end-stage temporomandibular joint disease. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 43(8):980-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.02.004. View

10.

Stavness I, Hannam A, Lloyd J, Fels S . Predicting muscle patterns for hemimandibulectomy models. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2010; 13(4):483-91. DOI: 10.1080/10255841003762034. View

11.

Weber C, Dommerich S, Pau H, Kramp B . Limited mouth opening after primary therapy of head and neck cancer. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 14(3):169-73. DOI: 10.1007/s10006-010-0220-2. View

12.

Perez D, Wolford L, Schneiderman E, Movahed R, Bourland C, Perez Gutierrez E . Does Unilateral Temporomandibular Total Joint Reconstruction Result in Contralateral Joint Pain and Dysfunction?. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 74(8):1539-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.02.009. View

13.

Lipton J, Ship J . Estimated prevalence and distribution of reported orofacial pain in the United States. J Am Dent Assoc. 1993; 124(10):115-21. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1993.0200. View

14.

Linsen S, Schmidt-Beer U, Fimmers R, Gruner M, Koeck B . Craniomandibular pain, bite force, and oral health-related quality of life in patients with jaw resection. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2008; 37(1):94-106. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.12.019. View

15.

Yoon H, Zhao K, Rebellato J, An K, Keller E . Kinematic study of the mandible using an electromagnetic tracking device and custom dental appliance: introducing a new technique. J Biomech. 2005; 39(12):2325-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.07.001. View

16.

von Elm E, Altman D, Egger M, Pocock S, Gotzsche P, Vandenbroucke J . The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147(8):573-7. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010. View

17.

Celebi N, Rohner E, Gateno J, Noble P, Ismaily S, Teichgraeber J . Development of a mandibular motion simulator for total joint replacement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 69(1):66-79. PMC: 4638329. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.05.085. View

18.

Urken M, Buchbinder D, WEINBERG H, Vickery C, Sheiner A, Parker R . Functional evaluation following microvascular oromandibular reconstruction of the oral cancer patient: a comparative study of reconstructed and nonreconstructed patients. Laryngoscope. 1991; 101(9):935-50. DOI: 10.1288/00005537-199109000-00004. View

19.

Wang J, Stohler C . Textural properties of food used in studies of mastication. J Dent Res. 1990; 69(9):1546-50. DOI: 10.1177/00220345900690090101. View

20.

Koolstra J . Dynamics of the human masticatory system. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2002; 13(4):366-76. DOI: 10.1177/154411130201300406. View