Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Wroclawski, C.; Mediratta,
J.K.; Fillmore, W.J. Recent Advances
in Temporomandibular Joint Surgery.
Medicina 2023,59, 1409. https://
doi.org/10.3390/medicina59081409
Academic Editor: Basel A. Sharaf
Received: 1 July 2023
Revised: 28 July 2023
Accepted: 29 July 2023
Published: 2 August 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
medicina
Review
Recent Advances in Temporomandibular Joint Surgery
Catherine Wroclawski 1, Jai Kumar Mediratta 1and W. Jonathan Fillmore 2,*
1Resident, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
2Consultant, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
*Correspondence: fillmore.jonathan@mayo.edu
Abstract:
Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) affect a high percentage of children and adults
worldwide. Surgery may be indicated in severe or recalcitrant cases. Several recent advancements
in TMD and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) surgery have elevated understanding and the ability
to treat affected patients. We discuss recent advances in TMD epidemiology, juvenile idiopathic
arthritis (JIA) of the TMJ, and surgical techniques and technologies. Technical advancements have
been identified in TMJ arthroscopy, the treatment of TMJ subluxation and dislocation, and extended
prosthetic total TMJ reconstruction (eTMJR). Overall, this review provides valuable insights into
significant recent advancements in TMJ disorders and their surgical management.
Keywords: temporomandibular joint; TMJ; surgery; arthroscopy; arthroplasty; dislocation; eTMJR
1. Introduction
Temporomandibular disorders of all varieties affect people in every culture on every
continent, affecting up to 11% of children and even as high as 31% of adults [
1
]. While
most patients experience relief or at least a significant improvement in symptoms with
noninvasive treatments, surgical care may be warranted in refractory cases or frank arthritic
disease, among other scenarios.
A surgeon’s management of temporomandibular disorders has progressed over the
last several years. This is due, in large part, to advances in understanding pathophysiology,
epidemiology, and both surgical techniques and technologies. We may often look to new
technology in innovation for improved outcomes for patients. While this is the case for TMJ
surgery, advances in the foundational understanding of the disease state have also brought
significant benefits to patients and surgeons alike, leading to better outcomes through
better patient selection for surgical intervention, among other modes of care. The purpose
of this article is to review recent major advances that will assist the practicing TMJ surgeon
in providing high-quality, current, and informed care.
A basic understanding of TMD-related epidemiology has helped surgeons appreciate
and apply more holistic and collaborative care models as well as recognize patient cohorts
who may be more likely to experience favorable outcomes through surgical intervention.
Similarly, the last several years have seen a renewed understanding of TMJ involvement
in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Through improved understanding, con-
sensus diagnostics, imaging, and treatment protocols aim to improve patient outcomes.
On the technical side, arthroscopic TMJ surgery has also seen a proliferation of advocates
and techniques, particularly with regard to arthroscopic disc repositioning. Additionally,
recent investigations have helped identify additional treatments for recurrent TMJ disloca-
tion. Finally, while prosthetic TMJ reconstruction (TMJR) has been firmly established as
a safe and effective technique for the treatment of many severe conditions [
2
], new fron-
tiers of the application of this technology have been opened through the use of extended
TMJR prostheses.
Medicina 2023,59, 1409. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59081409 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/medicina
Medicina 2023,59, 1409 2 of 17
While not exhaustive, these areas of recent progress represent important advances for
surgeons treating the TMJ, about which they should certainly be aware to provide current
and optimal care for their patients (Figure 1).
Medicina 2023, 59, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 17
While not exhaustive, these areas of recent progress represent important advances
for surgeons treating the TMJ, about which they should certainly be aware to provide
current and optimal care for their patients (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Areas of recent advances impacting surgical management of TMD.
2. TMD Epidemiology: The OPPERA Study
The Orofacial Pain: Prospective Evaluation and Risk Assessment (OPPERA) study is
a landmark longitudinal study of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), with its first
publication beginning in 2011 [3]. It aimed to improve the understanding of orofacial pain
and TMD by identifying risk factors, clarifying pain mechanisms, assessing treatment out-
comes, and examining psychosocial contributions to the disease, among other metrics.
Unlike previous studies that primarily used cross-sectional designs and convenience sam-
ples, OPPERA overcame this limitation by employing a prospective cohort study with a
multi-site approach. It has provided valuable insights into TMD prevalence, demographic
trends, the role of jaw headaches and injury as risk factors, and the differentiation between
primary headaches and TMD-related secondary headaches, among other findings. Fur-
thermore, the study has facilitated the identification of phenotypical clusters, allowing for
a more targeted and comprehensive approach to TMD management in clinical practice.
While well known among those involved in headache and facial pain treatment, the au-
thors believe these studies are vastly underrecognized and underutilized in the surgical
community.
The OPPERA-I study, conducted between May 2006 and May 2013, included a total
of 4346 subjects with an age range of 18–44 living in Baltimore, MD; Buffalo, NY; Chapel
Hill, NC; and Gainsville, FL, who were studied between 2006 and 2013. There were three
study designs utilized: a prospective cohort study, a case-control study, and a nested case-
control study. Between December 2014 and May 2016, the OPPERA-2 study was con-
ducted, connecting with subjects who had not previously withdrawn from OPPERA-1.
For individuals who provided consent and participated in the research clinics during OP-
PERA-2, data was gathered through clinical examinations, quantitative sensory testing,
blood samples, and self-reported questionnaires.
Figure 1. Areas of recent advances impacting surgical management of TMD.
2. TMD Epidemiology: The OPPERA Study
The Orofacial Pain: Prospective Evaluation and Risk Assessment (OPPERA) study is a
landmark longitudinal study of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), with its first publi-
cation beginning in 2011 [
3
]. It aimed to improve the understanding of orofacial pain and
TMD by identifying risk factors, clarifying pain mechanisms, assessing treatment outcomes,
and examining psychosocial contributions to the disease, among other metrics. Unlike
previous studies that primarily used cross-sectional designs and convenience samples, OP-
PERA overcame this limitation by employing a prospective cohort study with a multi-site
approach. It has provided valuable insights into TMD prevalence, demographic trends, the
role of jaw headaches and injury as risk factors, and the differentiation between primary
headaches and TMD-related secondary headaches, among other findings. Furthermore,
the study has facilitated the identification of phenotypical clusters, allowing for a more
targeted and comprehensive approach to TMD management in clinical practice. While well
known among those involved in headache and facial pain treatment, the authors believe
these studies are vastly underrecognized and underutilized in the surgical community.
The OPPERA-I study, conducted between May 2006 and May 2013, included a total
of 4346 subjects with an age range of 18–44 living in Baltimore, MD; Buffalo, NY; Chapel
Hill, NC; and Gainsville, FL, who were studied between 2006 and 2013. There were three
study designs utilized: a prospective cohort study, a case-control study, and a nested
case-control study. Between December 2014 and May 2016, the OPPERA-2 study was
conducted, connecting with subjects who had not previously withdrawn from OPPERA-
1. For individuals who provided consent and participated in the research clinics during
OPPERA-2, data was gathered through clinical examinations, quantitative sensory testing,
blood samples, and self-reported questionnaires.
Medicina 2023,59, 1409 3 of 17
2.1. Demographics
One of OPPERA’s major strengths is its study design. For example, in 1993, Bush
et al. identified that TMD has a higher prevalence in females than in males [
4
], with
LeResche further characterizing TMD as affecting young and middle-aged adults in 1997 [
5
].
However, the initial findings of the OPPERA studies revealed that TMD is prevalent in the
US, with 4% of the population developing TMD on an annual basis [
6
]. Slade et al. also
published the initial findings of the OPPERA study in 2011 revealing the key demographic
data [
3
]. TMD is highest in patients aged 35–44 (7%) and lowest in patients aged 18–24 (3%).
Females are four times more likely to suffer from TMD than men, while African Americans
and Hispanics had one-fifth odds of developing TMD compared to non-Hispanic Whites.
However, Kim et al. performed a cross-sectional study utilizing the OPPERA database,
showing that for both Asians and African Americans compared to non-Hispanic Whites,
pain catastrophizing played a significant role in mediating the association between race and
pain-related measures [
7
]. Further, compared to healthy individuals, patients with TMD
have higher levels of pain-related disability, and it is well established that catastrophizing
is a strong predictor of TMD, as are psychosocial stress, affective distress, and somatic
symptoms overall [
8
]. It is crucial to consider these factors appropriately when treatment
planning potential surgical candidates.
2.2. Role of Injury
The OPPERA study has played a pivotal role in our understanding of the development
and exacerbation of TMD. Sharma et al. in 2019 sought to elucidate jaw injury as a risk factor
for TMD [
9
]. The initial findings of the prospective cohort study showed that individuals
who reported a jaw injury had a fourfold higher risk of developing TMD compared to those
without an injury, either extrinsic or intrinsic. Intrinsic was defined as injury attributed
to yawning or prolonged mouth opening, whereas extrinsic included tooth extraction or
dental treatments; oral intubation; sports injury (including falls, bumps, and blows); motor
vehicle accidents; accidents resulting in whiplash; and injuries to the shoulder, neck, and
head region. Sharma et al. would expand upon their initial study to show that jaw injury
significantly increased the odds of developing TMD by a factor of five after adjusting
for confounding variables [
10
]. In both studies performed, intrinsic injuries were more
prevalent than extrinsic. Despite most injuries being intrinsic, the risk of TMD increased to
a similar extent irrespective of whether the injury was intrinsic or extrinsic.
2.3. Headache and Chronic Pain Conditions
The OPPERA studies shed light on the association between headaches and their role
as a risk factor for TMD. Headaches that arise as a secondary symptom of TMD are distinct
from primary headaches that can subsequently contribute to the development of TMD.
Headaches attributed to TMD (HATMD) are well established and part of Schiffman’s
diagnostic criteria for TMD [
11
] and was recently included in the finalized version of
the International Classification of Headache Disorders—third edition (ICHD-3) [
12
]. In
contrast, primary headaches, such as migraines or tension headaches, are known to have an
independent etiology but are thought to be comorbid with TMD. Tchivileva et al. utilized
the OPPERA data to show that baseline reports of migraine, as well as frequent headaches,
served as risk factors for developing TMD [
13
]. The association between migraines and
TMD is unsurprising when considering the shared anatomical pathway of the trigeminal
nerve between migraines and TMD [
14
]. Tchivileva et al. later showed that not only is
the baseline presentation of a migraine a risk factor but that HATMD typically presents
as migraine dominating. Sonia et al. sought to define characteristics that distinguish a
headache that is comorbid with temporomandibular disorder from a HATMD. Utilizing
the data from the OPPERA II study, they showed that the more severe the masticatory
system pain with a patient, the more likely the headache was secondary to HATMD versus
a primary headache [15].
Medicina 2023,59, 1409 4 of 17
Headache was not the only pain condition studied within the OPPERA data set. Other
chronic overlapping pain conditions (COPCs) often coexist with TMD and exhibit shared
biopsychosocial characteristics, symptoms, and risk factors [
16
]. Research has shown that
the overlapping of disease symptoms of COPC can be attributed to central sensitization,
a mechanism involving increased synaptic efficiency that affects sensory and nociceptive
stimuli [
17
]. Slade et al. utilized the OPPERA II data set to compare the degree of overlap
between TMD and other COPCs, revealing a greater overlap between musculoskeletal
conditions such as fibromyalgia and chronic back pain compared to headaches and IBS [
18
].
2.4. Phenotypical Clusters
While the OPPERA studies have shed light on the heterogenous etiology of TMD with
an anatomical focus, they have also statistically validated several risk factors seen among
all chronic pain patients allowing for the development of “phenotypical clusters.” Bair
et al. were the first to describe these clusters by identifying statistically distinguishable risk
factor profiles that patients shared [
16
]. The three phenotypical clusters described were
the adaptive cluster, pain-sensitive cluster (PS), and global symptoms (GS) cluster based
on four validated variables: the pressure pain threshold of the trapezius muscle and its
association with the subscales of anxiety, depression, and somatization, as measured by the
SCL-90R questionnaire [19].
In this study, 33% belonged to the adaptive cluster, which showed minimal hypersen-
sitivity and psychological distress. Individuals in this particular group experience milder
pain, minimal psychological distress, and exhibit the lowest sensitivity to muscle pain.
The pain they experience is primarily confined to the temporomandibular joint and the
surrounding muscles, and they report few comorbidities or COPCs. Additionally, this
group has a higher representation of men compared to women. The pain-sensitive cluster
comprised 48% of participants. Individuals in this group exhibit the highest sensitivity to
muscle pain, slightly elevated psychological distress, and a greater number of associated
chronic pain conditions compared to the adaptive group. This group also has a slightly
higher number of women compared to men. The remaining cluster, known as global
symptoms, accounted for 18% of the participants in Bair’s study. Individuals in this group
who have TMD experience the most intense pain and dysfunction. They exhibit a higher
number of tender muscle sites and a significantly greater number of associated COPCs.
Moreover, they encounter the highest levels of psychological distress among the three
groups. Individuals in this group tend to have a higher incidence of jaw injuries and
have experienced more traumatic events in their lives. A larger percentage of patients in
this group have a history of smoking [
19
]. Lastly, there is a notable imbalance in gender
representation, with a considerably higher proportion of women than men falling into
this group.
OPPERA has improved our understanding of the epidemiology of TMD as well
as the risk factors associated with the condition. By clarifying the risk factors, such as
psychosocial stress, affective distress, somatic symptoms, trauma, and headaches, surgeons
can better identify individuals at higher risk and develop targeted prevention strategies.
The utilization of the phenotypical clustering method holds great promise for influencing
clinical practice in a meaningful way as well. OPPERA has shown that, for individuals in
either the PS or GS clusters, it is crucial to initiate a thorough screening for concurrent pain
conditions. While there may be clear anatomic abnormalities in a potential TMJ surgical
candidate, understanding and applying the findings of the OPPERA studies will help
surgeons to make more clear-eyed clinical decisions, seek multidisciplinary treatment,
and more thoroughly educate patients to help them understand the implications of their
condition. The authors recommend a full review of the OPPERA studies for a more in-depth
understanding of the subject and its application.
Medicina 2023,59, 1409 5 of 17
3. Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis of the Temporomandibular Joint
Understanding and treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and its effects,
specifically on the temporomandibular joint, have advanced significantly over the last
decade. Once noted to be “the forgotten joint”, [
20
] due to its omission from diagnosis
and management protocols for JIA, the last 10–15 years have hosted a dramatic increase
in our understanding about TMJ involvement in sufferers of JIA [
21
–
23
]. This includes
improvements in detection and diagnosis, generalized increased awareness, recognition
of morbidity of untreated cases, and established medical and surgical treatments in this
patient population.
JIA affects 1 in 1000 children [
24
] and has seven subtypes, according to the International
League of Associations for Rheumatology [
25
]. It appears that TMJ involvement in these
cases is very common (up to 87% [
26
], but more likely close to 40% [
27
,
28
]), albeit frequently
undetected due to a lack of symptoms or screening.
3.1. Imaging and Diagnosis
Physical examination is still important, as is a thorough history, in order to identify
potential TMJ involvement [29]. However, it is clear that the exam alone is insufficient for
screening in the JIA population. A straightforward and efficient six-point examination pro-
tocol has been developed by the TMJaw Working Group [
30
] but should be supplemented
with imaging. It is recommended that patients undergo regular TMJ-focused exams as part
of initial rheumatologic/JIA evaluations as well as at the time of annual follow-up in order
to determine the presence or progression of disease [31].
Imaging these patients becomes critical in light of the frequent lack of symptoms in
the presence of early or even destructive late disease. Fortunately, the development of
recent guidelines and protocols [
32
,
33
] and resources [
34
,
35
] reduces the number of patients
missed or undertreated. For proper screening to evaluate synovitis or early joint disease,
Gadolinium contrast-enhanced MRI is ideal [
36
,
37
]. In addition, the wider availability of
3.0-T magnets in recent years has also enhanced diagnostic ability.
It is important for the treating surgeon to communicate clearly with the radiology
team to ensure proper imaging is acquired, especially in the case of children who may
require sedation, or in whom an abbreviated exam is desirable. A “minimal required
protocol” includes several sequences (sagittal oblique fat-suppressed T2 or STIR, sagittal
oblique T1 TSE, coronal T1 TSE, and contrast-enhanced T1 FS-weighted), while a longer
“ideal protocol” adds sagittal oblique fat-suppressed T1, proton density, and gradient
echo sequences [
32
]. The use of a scoring system for joint health based on these protocols
helps stage disease or monitor progression/quiescence [
34
,
38
,
39
]. Further improvements
in imaging techniques, such as dynamic contrast enhancement MRI [
40
] and black bone
MRI [
41
], potentiate earlier detection and discrimination of disease to allow for more
complete and timely treatment of this patient population.
Other means of diagnosis remain unsettled or controversial in the scientific literature
at this point. This includes the use of panorex, sonography, and synovial fluid analysis,
among other methods [
42
]. In addition, MRI is helpful to detect inflammation and osseous
changes but is not necessarily specific for JIA as the etiology of these findings [
43
]. CT or
cone beam CT may assist in detecting osseous changes or evaluating craniofacial changes
in affected individuals, but will be unhelpful in monitoring soft tissue inflammation [44].
3.2. Disease Course and Treatment
With greater publicity of TMJ involvement in JIA patients, the late sequelae of un- or
undertreated disease have become more visible [
22
]. Likewise, treatment aimed at reducing
the incidence and burden of late-stage disease has advanced.
Since the TMJ is a growth area for the mandible and influences craniofacial growth
and development beyond just the condyle itself, these disruptions can cause significant
hypoplasia of the mandible, malpositioning of the maxilla, and retrognathia-associated
airway compromise or sleep-disordered breathing [
23
,
45
,
46
]. The degree and type of
Medicina 2023,59, 1409 6 of 17
dentofacial deformity are related to the timing and severity of the disease during growth
and development [47].
Overall, the optimization of medical treatments for JIA seems to benefit affected tem-
poromandibular joints. Advances in systemic treatments are encouraging; however, in
many instances, the TMJ seems to respond less well to medical treatments than other
joints [
20
,
28
]. However, a recent study by Bollhalder et al. showed hopeful TMJ-related out-
comes with methotrexate (and, in many cases, combined with biologics) over several years
of treatment [
48
]. Encouraging outcomes included both symptom control and mandibular
growth. Fortunately, more studies are forthcoming to better understand the effects of
systemic therapy on the TMJ, in particular, including clinical trials [
49
]. It is unclear if this
has more to do with the overall incidence of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) casting
a confounding shadow over concurrent JIA or if there is something different about the TMJ
that causes the TMJ to be less responsive to systemic treatment.
Intra-articular injection of steroids has been advocated for a long time (Stoll 2015),
but there is some controversy regarding repeated use and the potential risk of heterotopic
bone formation or problematic growth [
50
,
51
]. It may be helpful for symptom control (not
disease progression), but repeated injections of steroids after an unsuccessful injection
should not be encouraged [
52
]. Interestingly, arthrocentesis without steroid injection was
shown to be as effective for symptom control as arthrocentesis with steroid injection [
53
].
Alternative injections, such as inflixamab, have been explored for systemic arthropathy [
54
]
and the TMJ in particular with mixed results [55,56].
For late-stage disease, with or without extra-articular dentofacial deformity, major
operative intervention can be quite successful [
57
]. For the treatment of the joint itself,
orthognathic surgery, costochondral grafting, distraction osteogenesis [
58
], and prosthetic
joint reconstruction have been advocated. Costochondral grafting (CCG)—a successful
treatment [
59
]—seems to be less favored recently, as alloplastic TMJ reconstruction is often
viewed by surgeons as more predictable biologically and functionally [
60
]. Early reports
that have shown encouraging success in prosthetic joint reconstruction are encouraging
in terms of an improved range of motion, occlusal and masticatory function, and even
improvement in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) [
61
]. This is a particularly valuable treat-
ment when inflammation and synovitis persist despite medical interventions, or when the
counterclockwise rotation of the jaws is planned and autogenous grafts may not be as ro-
bust mechanically. In cases involving dentofacial deformity, an interdisciplinary approach
(involving orthodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and pediatric rheumatologists)
may be especially helpful [62].
Orthognathic surgery, with or without arthroplasty, has a place in the treatment
of this patient population. Reporting on combined orthognathic and prosthetic joint
reconstruction, Trivedi et al. evaluated 40 JIA-affected patients in a case-control model
and showed dramatic improvements in function and a reduction in pain [
63
]. Regarding
mandibular orthognathic surgery, Raffaini et al. reviewed 13 cases retrospectively, noting
stable findings and quiescent disease 1 year post-operatively [
64
]. All of these patients had
some condylar changes and reduced ramus height (12 bilateral), but disease was quiescent
in the TMJ at the time of surgery. In addition, all underwent medical treatment in the form
of etanercept for at least one year prior to surgery. Other reports of orthognathic surgery in
this population seem to indicate stable outcomes in the quiescent joint [
65
–
67
]. Similarly,
distraction osteogenesis may be considered in the same population [62].
Another concern for JIA-affected individuals, particularly with TMJ involvement, is
the risk of developing obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Recent studies indicate the significant
risk of OSA in this population as compared to non-JIA individuals [
68
,
69
]. The condylar
resorption and rotation of the mandible that causes retrognathia seem to be a significant
factor in developing these symptoms in the young adult years (age 18–30) [
68
]. This is
simply another reason for early detection and intervention in this patient population in
order to minimize the risk of dentofacial deformity and all its problematic sequelae.
Medicina 2023,59, 1409 7 of 17
Finally, treatments commonly used for temporomandibular disorders, such as physical
therapy or occlusal appliances, may be implemented for symptom relief [
70
,
71
]. If a patient
responds to an occlusal appliance alone, for example, it is less likely that the underlying
source of symptoms is inflammatory arthritis.
4. Technical Advances in TMJ Surgery
4.1. Advanced TMJ Arthroscopy
TMJ arthroscopy is a treatment modality with a rich history (Figure 2), and there are
several areas within arthroscopy that have seen advancement recently. One of the most
notable developments in advanced TMJ arthroscopy in the last 10–15 years has been the
development of discopexy for the repositioning and fixation of an anteriorly displaced
TMJ disc [
72
,
73
]. First reported in English by Israel in 1989 [
74
], important variations soon
followed [
75
–
79
]. The technique documented in 1992 by McCain et al. [
80
], involving
11 temporomandibular joints (8 patients), was subsequently modified by Yang et al. in
2012 [
81
]. The technique described by McCain et al. involves the release of the anterior
portion of the disc from its attachment to the synovium. Once the disc is reduced, it is
sutured posterolaterally. With this technique, the suture is passed through the posterior
margin of the disc using a spinal needle, while the Meniscus Mender II uses a lasso-type
suture retriever. McCain’s technique involves a small incision within the preauricular
crease adjacent to the suture exit point to facilitate tying the suture within the extracapsular
fatty tissue.
Medicina 2023, 59, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17
Finally, treatments commonly used for temporomandibular disorders, such as phys-
ical therapy or occlusal appliances, may be implemented for symptom relief [70,71]. If a
patient responds to an occlusal appliance alone, for example, it is less likely that the un-
derlying source of symptoms is inflammatory arthritis.
4. Technical Advances in TMJ Surgery
4.1. Advanced TMJ Arthroscopy
TMJ arthroscopy is a treatment modality with a rich history (Figure 2), and there are
several areas within arthroscopy that have seen advancement recently. One of the most
notable developments in advanced TMJ arthroscopy in the last 10–15 years has been the
development of discopexy for the repositioning and fixation of an anteriorly displaced
TMJ disc [72,73]. First reported in English by Israel in 1989 [74], important variations soon
followed [75–79]. The technique documented in 1992 by McCain et al. [80], involving 11
temporomandibular joints (8 patients), was subsequently modified by Yang et al. in 2012
[81]. The technique described by McCain et al. involves the release of the anterior portion
of the disc from its aachment to the synovium. Once the disc is reduced, it is sutured
posterolaterally. With this technique, the suture is passed through the posterior margin of
the disc using a spinal needle, while the Meniscus Mender II uses a lasso-type suture re-
triever. McCain’s technique involves a small incision within the preauricular crease adja-
cent to the suture exit point to facilitate tying the suture within the extracapsular fay
tissue.
Figure 2. Some highlights of evolution of TMJ arthroscopic discopexy.[74,79–85].
Yang and colleagues’ main modifications to this suture discopexy technique is in the
suturing technique and instruments used [81]. Most notably, a horizontal maress paern
is used with two sutures and the sutures are tied such that the knots are beneath the car-
tilage of the external auditory canal (EAC). This method of suturing not only prevents
dimpling of the skin, but also minimizes the risk of entrapment of the frontal branch of
the facial nerve and allows for a vector of traction on the disc that is directed along the
anterior–posterior long axis of the disc, as opposed to the posterolateral traction of prior
techniques. Yang’s technique also involves an exchangeable, custom-designed lasso-type
and hook-type gripper.
A follow-up study by Yang et al. that used MRI to evaluate the efficacy of their ar-
throscopic suture discopexy technique to reposition anteriorly displaced discs in 764 joints
Figure 2. Some highlights of evolution of TMJ arthroscopic discopexy [74,79–85].
Yang and colleagues’ main modifications to this suture discopexy technique is in
the suturing technique and instruments used [
81
]. Most notably, a horizontal mattress
pattern is used with two sutures and the sutures are tied such that the knots are beneath the
cartilage of the external auditory canal (EAC). This method of suturing not only prevents
dimpling of the skin, but also minimizes the risk of entrapment of the frontal branch of
the facial nerve and allows for a vector of traction on the disc that is directed along the
anterior–posterior long axis of the disc, as opposed to the posterolateral traction of prior
techniques. Yang’s technique also involves an exchangeable, custom-designed lasso-type
and hook-type gripper.
A follow-up study by Yang et al. that used MRI to evaluate the efficacy of their arthro-
scopic suture discopexy technique to reposition anteriorly displaced discs in
764 joints
found a success rate of 98.56%. However, the post-operative MRI was obtained only
between 1 and 7 days post-operatively [
86
]. More recently, Jerez et al. describe a modifica-
Medicina 2023,59, 1409 8 of 17
tion to Yang’s suture discopexy technique that utilizes more commonly available suture
equipment consisting of two patented lasso grippers, and two Meniscus Mender II curved
and straight spinal needles. However, this technique requires five to six puncture sites
compared to three puncture sites with Yang’s technique [84].
Alternative techniques for discopexy have also arisen. Martinez-Gimeno has described
a single portal discopexy technique, fixing the disc to the tragal cartilage without an anterior
release [
87
]. A 1-year follow-up seemed favorable for a limited number of subjects, most
with anterior disc displacement with reduction. Alternatively, arthroscopic discopexy
using resorbable pins in lieu of sutures has also recently received more long-term appraisal,
showing efficacy [
88
]. Using the technique initially published in 2016 [
89
], and similar
to Goizueta-Adame in 2014 [
90
], resorbable pin use appears to offer at least five years of
benefit, in terms of range of motion and pain reduction. Although the sample consisted of
33 subjects and only 23 made it to 5-year follow-up, the findings are encouraging, and larger
case numbers will further solidify this technique as viable for a Wilkes III patient. Lastly, a
separate study reported arthroscopic use of a titanium anchor for disc repositioning and
6 months of follow-up with patient benefits in a Wilkes II-III population [91].
Multiple studies have assessed the effectiveness of disc repositioning and suturing in
arthroscopic vs. open techniques. A study by Abdelrehem et al. evaluated the outcomes
of TMJ arthroscopic versus open disc repositioning for the management of anterior disc
displacement in 277 joints (177 patients) [
92
]. This study found that while there was an
improvement in pain score, clicking, diet, and MIO, in both the arthroscopic and open
groups, the clinical improvements occurred earlier in the arthroscopic group (1 month)
versus the open group (6 months.) Additionally, the success rate in the arthroscopic group
was slightly higher than the open group at 98.1% versus 97.3%. Condylar remodeling
occurred in 70.2% of patients in the arthroscopy group versus 30.1% of patients in the
open group. Recent systematic reviews by Askar et al. and Santos et al. have found that
arthroscopic and open disc repositioning reduced pain and improved MIO. However, both
studies indicated that the number of studies and evidence was limited, with Askar et al.
noting that the heterogeneous nature of the study designs and data reporting was such
that the studies could not be directly compared, and quantitative analysis could not be
performed [93,94].
The authors also noted the lack of large subject numbers as well as medium and,
especially, long-term follow-up for either open or arthroscopic disc repositioning studies.
Because of these deficiencies, it is difficult to advocate for one technique over another,
and more data is needed. While remaining optimistic that this treatment benefits many
patients, the current volume and quality of data are consistent with the controversial
view this surgery may at times garner. One possible virtue of the arthroscopic technique
is the avoidance of open surgery, the accumulation of which often renders a later total
joint arthroplasty less successful. However, we also have no helpful data on outcomes
upon conversion of arthroscopic disc repositioning to total joint arthroplasty. While less
invasive than an open technique, it is unclear if this advanced arthroscopic technique
“counts against” the tally of prior TMJ surgeries that would decrease the success of a later
prosthetic reconstruction.
The Wilkes classification of TMJ internal derangement has been shown to predict the
likelihood of a successful arthroscopic discopexy. McCain et al. found that Wilkes stages
II and III had a successful primary outcome (the absence of joint pain at 12 months post-
operatively) of 86.7% compared to 25% for Wilkes stages IV and V [
85
]. This contrasts an
older study by Murakami et al. that reported a 92% and 93% success rate for Wilkes stages
IV and V, respectively [
95
]. However, this study utilized arthroscopic lysis and lavage for
Wilkes stage IV and advanced arthroscopic procedures (synovectomy, discoplasty, and
debridement) for Wilkes stage V, as opposed to discopexy.
Some of the findings regarding Wilkes staging and success in arthroscopic discopexy
were further assessed in a very recent study by Sah et al. [
96
]. This retrospective study
assessed whether certain prognostic factors impacted the success of Yang’s arthroscopic
Medicina 2023,59, 1409 9 of 17
suture discopexy technique in the treatment of TMJ closed lock. It was found that age,
duration of illness, Wilkes classification, and prior orthodontic treatment all impacted
surgical outcomes. Specifically, younger age, Wilkes stage III, shorter duration of illness,
and current orthodontic treatment were all associated with positive surgical outcomes. On
the contrary, older age, Wilkes stage IV, longer duration of illness, and previous orthodontic
treatment were associated with poor surgical outcomes.
When considering the efficacy of TMJ disc repositioning in cases of anterior disc
displacement, it is also important to consider the ability of disc repositioning to prevent
complications that could arise secondary to a lack of treatment of disc displacement. In the
adolescent population, untreated unilateral TMJ anterior disc displacement may result in
mandibular asymmetry, while bilateral anterior disc displacement may result in mandibular
retrusion. Prior to recently, there were very few studies that evaluated condylar bone
remodeling following arthroscopic TMJ surgery. Condylar bone remodeling following the
treatment of disc displacement would be beneficial in preventing complications regarding
mandibular symmetry and, thus, occlusion in patients with disc displacement. Dong and
colleagues recently performed a study to evaluate condylar remodeling following Yang’s
arthroscopic surgery in patients with anterior disc displacement both with and without
reduction [
83
]. While the specifics of the arthroscopic surgery patients underwent were
not discussed in detail, they found that 70.3% of the 229 patients had new condylar bone
formation when evaluated with MRI at 1 year following their arthroscopic surgery. The
youngest age group (10–15 years old) had the greatest percentage of patients with new
condylar bone formation (94.33%), while the oldest age group (above 30 years old) had the
lowest percentage (25%). The percentage of new condylar bone formation was found to
decrease as patient age increased [
83
]. More than half of the patients (53.53%) had bone
formation on the posterior slope of the condyle. Meanwhile, the area of the condyle with the
smallest amount of bone formation was the anterior slope of the condyle, with only 10.37%
of patients having new bone formation in this area. This study is important in showing
that the condyle still has the propensity to form new bone, especially in younger patients,
after repositioning of the TMJ disc. This may ultimately represent a protective factor in
preventing mandibular asymmetry and retrusion in cases of anterior disc displacement.
Outside of arthroscopic discopexy, arthroscopic management of a painful or prob-
lematic alloplastic TMJ prosthesis has been recently reported [
97
]. This is an important
advancement in technique, as TMJ prostheses are gaining traction and becoming more
widely used. The method described involves altered access points and the opportunity to
examine the prosthesis and potentially remove areas of synovial impingement or fibrosis.
It represents an opportunity for less-invasive diagnosis and treatment of symptomatic
prostheses, but is also in its infancy as a technique, with a higher risk for damaging the
prosthesis or neighboring structures due to different access and the instruments required.
4.2. Treatment of TMJ Subluxation and Dislocation
TMJ subluxation, or forward displacement of the mandibular condyle past the articular
eminence which reduces spontaneously or can be self-reduced, can have multiple different
etiologies [
98
]. It is most commonly an acute event that may be spontaneous or secondary
to trauma, a congenital condition, prior dental or otorhinolaryngological procedure, or an
underlying psychiatric condition. Rarely, it may become a recurrent or habitual event. It is
important to distinguish TMJ subluxation from dislocation, where the condyle is displaced
out of the glenoid fossa and usually must be reduced by someone else [
98
]. Over the years,
less invasive procedures have been added to the arsenal of oral and maxillofacial surgeons
for recurrent subluxation and dislocation [99].
Botulinum toxin type A, which traditionally has been used to treat focal dystonia or
other conditions involving involuntary muscle activity, has recently been shown to be an
option for the treatment of recurrent TMJ dislocation. A study by Fu et al. explored the
long-term efficacy of botulinum toxin type A for recurrent TMJ dislocation [
100
]. They
found that injections of 25–50 units of BTX-A into the lateral pterygoid muscle were
Medicina 2023,59, 1409 10 of 17
successful in preventing any additional TMJ dislocations during a follow-up spanning
3 months
to 2 years, without needing additional injections. However, the sample size of
this study was small (n= 5), and CTs were obtained to determine the position of the lateral
pterygoid muscles. This can be performed with EMG guidance [
101
] or alternatively could
be combined with another procedure with direct or arthroscopic visualization.
Other conservative treatments for habitual TMJ subluxation that have been a fo-
cus of research are autologous blood injection (ABI) and dextrose prolotherapy [
102
].
Studies on ABI indicate that it is effective, although it will occasionally require multi-
ple
injections [103–105], and has good long-term success [106]
. It appears to be more ef-
fective when injected in the pericapsular tissues and not just the superior joint space
alone [
107
,
108
], and the technique may be combined successfully with arthrocentesis or
arthroscopy [
109
,
110
]. The European Society of TMJ Surgeons (ESTMJS) has recently
published a consensus on the treatment of condylar dislocation, finding the best level of
evidence for the use of autologous blood as a minimally invasive technique [
98
]. Following
autologous blood prolotherapy, there may be a benefit in limiting the MIO of the jaws.
However, intermaxillary fixation alone is currently not recommended [
98
]. It does appear
that a combination of a course of IMF and ABI is more effective at reducing recurrence than
ABI alone [105].
Dextrose prolotherapy may have similar effectiveness in the long-term management
of symptoms associated with TMJ subluxation. A study by Refai, in which 10% dextrose
prolotherapy was administered to 61 patients with symptomatic TMJ subluxation, found
a significant reduction and pain, clicking, and frequency of locking in those with symp-
tomatic TMJ subluxation [
111
]. It is important to note that only three patients in this study
had recurrent TMJ dislocation, but they all reported improvement after one treatment. A
few systematic reviews evaluating dextrose prolotherapy versus placebo have been per-
formed in recent years. These reviews have found that dextrose prolotherapy significantly
reduced pain. However, there were differing findings regarding a significant reduction
in MMO and functional scores [
112
,
113
]. Additionally, a systematic review by Nagori
et al. found that there was no significant difference in the frequency of TMJ subluxation
or dislocation [
112
]. It is important to note that the literature regarding the efficacy of
dextrose prolotherapy is not very robust currently, with each systematic review comprising
only 3 and 10 randomized controlled trials [
112
,
113
]. Thus, it appears that further studies
using dextrose prolotherapy would be beneficial in determining its efficacy. A more recent
study by Pandey et al. compared autologous blood and 25% dextrose prolotherapy for
the treatment of recurrent TMJ dislocation [
114
]. This retrospective study found that au-
tologous blood prolotherapy was more effective in reducing MMO and improving lateral
and protrusive mandibular movements, while dextrose prolotherapy was more effective in
reducing pain intensity.
4.3. Extended Total Temporomandibular Joint Reconstruction Prostheses (eTMJR)
The first total temporomandibular joint reconstruction procedure was first described in
the 1970s. By the early 2000s, multiple companies had developed a total temporomandibu-
lar joint prosthesis that consisted of a titanium mandibular condyle and a polyethylene
mandibular fossa implant [
115
]. Although there have been advances in the workflow of
conventional total temporomandibular joint reconstruction (TJR) prostheses over the last
20 years
, the overall design of the prosthesis replacing the glenoid fossa and the mandibular
condyle has largely remained the same. Generally, the mandibular component of the TJR
prosthesis does not extend beyond the area of the angle of the mandible. However, in
patients with extensive pathologies or deformities involving the TMJ, the conventional
prosthesis design cannot be used. For these purposes, extended TJR (eTMJR) prostheses
have been designed and used in situations in which defects in the mandible or base of the
skull must be reconstructed in addition to the TMJ complex [116,117].
A classification system for the eTMJR prosthesis has recently been described to aid
in communication and clinical decision making. There is a separate classification for both
Medicina 2023,59, 1409 11 of 17
the fossa component and the condyle/mandible component. The fossa component classifi-
cation ranges from F0 (the standard fossa component) up to F5 (fossa prosthesis covering
a temporal defect that extends to the jugular foramen). Similarly, the condyle/mandible
classification ranges from M0 (standard condyle–ramus component), up to M4 (total al-
loplastic mandible prosthesis that includes both condyles). This initial classification was
based on a review of 19 patients/prostheses from the manufacturer TMJ Concepts (Ventura,
CA, USA) [
118
]. This classification system was recently validated by the same authors
by sending a survey to 64 high-volume alloplastic TJR surgeons. It was found that the
mandibular component of the classification system had good inter-rater agreement. This
was not the case with the fossa classification [
119
]. This study proposed a revision of the
original classification for the fossa component to a simpler three-tier classification system.
This classification system ranged from F0 (standard fossa component) to FA (extended
fossa component confined to zygomatic arch) to FT (extended fossa component that in-
cludes a temporal bone defect). Unfortunately, there were multiple limitations in this study,
including the respondent size (n= 17) and survey protocol, which made it difficult to view
and score the fossa components. The modified fossa component classification was again
validated by the same group of authors [
120
]. This study found better inter-rater agreement
with the three-tier fossa component classification system. Again, the study was limited by
the small number of respondents (n= 24).
Overall, data regarding the efficacy of the various eTMJR prostheses have been limited
to primarily case reports and case series [
121
]. A recent review by Khattak et al. looked to
evaluate the effectiveness of eTMJRs based on functional and esthetic variables, and the
post-operative complications associated with these prostheses [
116
]. The variables reported
and analyzed included maximum incisal opening, occlusion, symmetry, pain, and diet.
The authors found that overall there was an improvement across these variables with the
use of eTMJR prostheses. Yet, this study also revealed the significant gaps in information
regarding eTMJR prostheses such as the prevalence of post-operative complications (nerve
palsy, infection, etc.). Lastly, it was noted that only one of the studies analyzed utilized the
eTMJR prosthesis classification system, making it difficult to perform comparative analyses.
This highlights the importance of utilizing a classification system and more comprehensive
data reporting in future studies on eTMJR prostheses.
5. Conclusions
Our knowledge both clinically and surgically regarding the temporomandibular joint
has vastly increased over the last 15 years. Landmark studies in basic science, epidemiology,
and surgical technique have significantly advanced not only how we treatment plan
patients with orofacial pain and TMJ disorders but also the techniques employed to perform
procedures that provide the most benefit to the patient. The field continues to evolve
as technology improves with novel techniques and prostheses, such as the extended
TMJ prosthesis. These advances are allowing TMJ surgeons to not only directly treat the
temporomandibular joint, but also the surrounding structures. From patients with JIA to
patients with large craniofacial defects, these advancements in knowledge, techniques, and
technology are pushing into exciting new territories of TMJ surgery that will continue to
revolutionize patient care and quality of life.
Author Contributions:
All authors contributed to conceptualization, literature review, and writing.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Medicina 2023,59, 1409 12 of 17
Acknowledgments:
Leslie C. Hassett, MLS, is gratefully acknowledged for assistance with the
literature review.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Valesan, L.F.; Da-Cas, C.D.; Reus, J.C.; Denardin, A.C.S.; Garanhani, R.R.; Bonotto, D.; Januzzi, E.; de Souza, B.D.M. Prevalence of
temporomandibular joint disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021,25, 441–453. [CrossRef]
2.
Mercuri, L.G.; Neto, M.Q.; Pourzal, R. Alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement: Present status and future perspectives
of the elements of embodiment. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2022,51, 1573–1578. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Slade, G.D.; Bair, E.; By, K.; Mulkey, F.; Baraian, C.; Rothwell, R.; Reynolds, M.; Miller, V.; Gonzalez, Y.; Gordon, S.; et al. Study
methods, recruitment, sociodemographic findings, and demographic representativeness in the OPPERA study. J. Pain
2011
,12,
T12–T26. [CrossRef]
4.
Bush, F.M.; Harkins, S.W.; Harrington, W.G.; Price, D.D. Analysis of gender effects on pain perception and symptom presentation
in temporomandibular pain. Pain 1993,53, 73–80. [CrossRef]
5.
LeResche, L. Epidemiology of temporomandibular disorders: Implications for the investigation of etiologic factors. Crit. Rev. Oral
Biol. Med. 1997,8, 291–305. [CrossRef]
6.
Slade, G.D.; Fillingim, R.B.; Sanders, A.E.; Bair, E.; Greenspan, J.D.; Ohrbach, R.; Dubner, R.; Diatchenko, L.; Smith, S.B.; Knott, C.;
et al. Summary of findings from the OPPERA prospective cohort study of incidence of first-onset temporomandibular disorder:
Implications and future directions. J. Pain 2013,14, T116–T124. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Kim, H.J.; Greenspan, J.D.; Ohrbach, R.; Fillingim, R.B.; Maixner, W.; Renn, C.L.; Johantgen, M.; Zhu, S.; Dorsey, S.G. Racial/ethnic
differences in experimental pain sensitivity and associated factors-Cardiovascular responsiveness and psychological status. PLoS
ONE 2019,14, e0215534. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8.
Willassen, L.; Johansson, A.A.; Kvinnsland, S.; Staniszewski, K.; Berge, T.; Rosén, A. Catastrophizing Has a Better Prediction for
TMD Than Other Psychometric and Experimental Pain Variable. Pain Res. Manag. 2020,12, 7893023. [CrossRef]
9.
Sharma, S.; Wactawski-Wende, J.; LaMonte, M.J.; Zhao, J.; Slade, G.D.; Bair, E.; Greenspan, J.D.; Fillingim, R.B.; Maixner, W.;
Ohrbach, R. Incident injury is strongly associated with subsequent incident temporomandibular disorder: Results from the
OPPERA study. Pain 2019,160, 1551–1561. [CrossRef]
10.
Sharma, S.; Ohrbach, R.; Fillingim, R.B.; Greenspan, J.D.; Slade, G. Pain Sensitivity Modifies Risk of Injury-Related Temporo-
mandibular Disorder. J. Dent. Res. 2020,99, 530–536. [CrossRef]
11.
Schiffman, E.; Ohrbach, R.; Truelove, E.; Look, J.; Anderson, G.; Goulet, J.P.; List, T.; Svensson, P.; Gonzalez, Y.; Lobbezoo, F.; et al.
Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) for Clinical and Research Applications: Recommendations of
the International RDC/TMD Consortium Network* and Orofacial Pain Special Interest Groupdagger. J. Oral Facial Pain Headache
2014,28, 6–27. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12.
Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). The International Classification of Headache
Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia 2018,38, 1–211. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13.
Tchivileva, I.E.; Ohrbach, R.; Fillingim, R.B.; Greenspan, J.D.; Maixner, W.; Slade, G.D. Temporal change in headache and its
contribution to the risk of developing first-onset temporomandibular disorder in the Orofacial Pain: Prospective Evaluation and
Risk Assessment (OPPERA) study. Pain 2017,158, 120–129. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Chichorro, J.G.; Porreca, F.; Sessle, B. Mechanisms of craniofacial pain. Cephalalgia 2017,37, 613–626. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15.
Sharma, S.; Slade, G.D.; Fillingim, R.B.; Ohrbach, R. A rose by another name? Characteristics that distinguish headache secondary
to temporomandibular disorder from headache that is comorbid with temporomandibular disorder. Pain
2023
,164, 820–830.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Bair, E.; Gaynor, S.; Slade, G.D.; Ohrbach, R.; Fillingim, R.B.; Greenspan, J.D.; Dubner, R.; Smith, S.B.; Diatchenko, L.; Maixner,
W. Identification of clusters of individuals relevant to temporomandibular disorders and other chronic pain conditions: The
OPPERA study. Pain 2016,157, 1266–1278. [CrossRef]
17. Woolf, C.J. Central sensitization: Implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. Pain 2011,152, S2–S15. [CrossRef]
18.
Slade, G.D.; Greenspan, J.D.; Fillingim, R.B.; Maixner, W.; Sharma, S.; Ohrbach, R. Overlap of Five Chronic Pain Conditions:
Temporomandibular Disorders, Headache, Back Pain, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and Fibromyalgia. J. Oral Facial Pain Headache
2020,34, s15–s28. [CrossRef]
19.
Gaynor, S.M.; Bortsov, A.; Bair, E.; Fillingim, R.B.; Greenspan, J.D.; Ohrbach, R.; Diatchenko, L.; Nackley, A.; Tchivileva, I.E.;
Whitehead, W.; et al. Phenotypic profile clustering pragmatically identifies diagnostically and mechanistically informative
subgroups of chronic pain patients. Pain 2021,162, 1528–1538. [CrossRef]
20.
Arabshahi, B.; Cron, R.Q. Temporomandibular joint arthritis in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: The forgotten joint. Curr. Opin.
Rheumatol. 2006,18, 490–495. [CrossRef]
21.
Ma, K.S.; Thota, E.; Huang, J.Y.; Wei, J.C.; Resnick, C.M. Increased risk of temporomandibular joint disorders and craniofacial
deformities in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: A population-based cohort study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2022,51,
1482–1487. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Medicina 2023,59, 1409 13 of 17
22.
Resnick, C.M.; Dang, R.; Henderson, L.A.; Zander, D.A.; Daniels, K.M.; Nigrovic, P.A.; Kaban, L.B. Frequency and Morbidity of
Temporomandibular Joint Involvement in Adult Patients With a History of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.
2017,75, 1191–1200. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23.
Patel, K.; Gerber, B.; Bailey, K.; Saeed, N.R. Juvenile idiopathic arthritis of the temporomandibular joint-no longer the forgotten
joint. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2022,60, 247–256. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24.
Niibo, P.; Pruunsild, C.; Voog-Oras, U.; Nikopensius, T.; Jagomagi, T.; Saag, M. Contemporary management of TMJ involvement
in JIA patients and its orofacial consequences. EPMA J. 2016,7, 12. [CrossRef]
25.
Petty, R.E.; Southwood, T.R.; Manners, P.; Baum, J.; Glass, D.N.; Goldenberg, J.; He, X.; Maldonado-Cocco, J.; Orozco-Alcala, J.;
Prieur, A.M.; et al. International League of Associations for Rheumatology classification of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: Second
revision, Edmonton, 2001. J. Rheumatol. 2004,31, 390–392.
26.
Kovalko, I.; Stoustrup, P.; Twilt, M. Temporomandibular joint involvement in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: Challenges in diagnosis,
treatment, and outcomes. Curr. Treat. Options Rheumatol. 2018,4, 44–54. [CrossRef]
27.
Cannizzaro, E.; Schroeder, S.; Muller, L.M.; Kellenberger, C.J.; Saurenmann, R.K. Temporomandibular joint involvement in
children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. J. Rheumatol. 2011,38, 510–515. [CrossRef]
28.
Stoll, M.L.; Sharpe, T.; Beukelman, T.; Good, J.; Young, D.; Cron, R.Q. Risk factors for temporomandibular joint arthritis in children
with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. J. Rheumatol. 2012,39, 1880–1887. [CrossRef]
29.
Pedersen, T.K.; Kuseler, A.; Gelineck, J.; Herlin, T. A prospective study of magnetic resonance and radiographic imaging in relation
to symptoms and clinical findings of the temporomandibular joint in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.
J. Rheumatol.
2008,35, 1668–1675.
30.
Stoustrup, P.; Herlin, T.; Spiegel, L.; Rahimi, H.; Koos, B.; Pedersen, T.K.; Twilt, M. Temporomandibular Joint Juvenile Arthritis
Working, G. Standardizing the Clinical Orofacial Examination in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: An Interdisciplinary, Consensus-
based, Short Screening Protocol. J. Rheumatol. 2020,47, 1397–1404. [CrossRef]
31.
Schmidt, C.; Ertel, T.; Arbogast, M.; Hugle, B.; Kalle, T.V.; Neff, A. The Diagnosis and Treatment of Rheumatoid and Juvenile
Idiopathic Arthritis of the Temporomandibular Joint. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 2022,119, 47–54. [CrossRef]
32.
Inarejos Clemente, E.J.; Tolend, M.; Navallas, M.; Doria, A.S.; Meyers, A.B. MRI of the temporomandibular joint in children with
juvenile idiopathic arthritis: Protocol and findings. Pediatr. Radiol. 2023,53, 1498–1512. [CrossRef]
33.
Miller, E.; Inarejos Clemente, E.J.; Tzaribachev, N.; Guleria, S.; Tolend, M.; Meyers, A.B.; von Kalle, T.; Stimec, J.; Koos, B.;
Appenzeller, S.; et al. Imaging of temporomandibular joint abnormalities in juvenile idiopathic arthritis with a focus on
developing a magnetic resonance imaging protocol. Pediatr. Radiol. 2018,48, 792–800. [CrossRef]
34.
Kellenberger, C.J.; Abramowicz, S.; Arvidsson, L.Z.; Kirkhus, E.; Tzaribachev, N.; Larheim, T.A. Recommendations for a Standard
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocol of Temporomandibular Joints in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.
2018
,
76, 2463–2465. [CrossRef]
35.
Vaid, Y.N.; Dunnavant, F.D.; Royal, S.A.; Beukelman, T.; Stoll, M.L.; Cron, R.Q. Imaging of the temporomandibular joint in
juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2014,66, 47–54. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36.
Navallas, M.; Inarejos, E.J.; Iglesias, E.; Cho Lee, G.Y.; Rodríguez, N.; Antón, J. MR Imaging of the Temporomandibular Joint in
Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Technique and Findings. Radiographics 2017,37, 595–612. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37.
Muller, L.; Kellenberger, C.J.; Cannizzaro, E.; Ettlin, D.; Schraner, T.; Bolt, I.B.; Peltomaki, T.; Saurenmann, R.K. Early diagnosis
of temporomandibular joint involvement in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: A pilot study comparing clinical examination and
ultrasound to magnetic resonance imaging. Rheumatology 2009,48, 680–685. [CrossRef]
38.
Maxwell, L.J.; Beaton, D.E.; Boers, M.; d’Agostino, M.A.; Conaghan, P.G.; Grosskleg, S.; Shea, B.J.; Bingham Iii, C.O.; Boonen, A.;
Christensen, R.; et al. The evolution of instrument selection for inclusion in core outcome sets at OMERACT: Filter 2.2. Semin.
Arthritis Rheum. 2021,51, 1320–1330. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39.
Tolend, M.A.; Twilt, M.; Cron, R.Q.; Tzaribachev, N.; Guleria, S.; von Kalle, T.; Koos, B.; Miller, E.; Stimec, J.; Vaid, Y.; et al. Toward
Establishing a Standardized Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scoring System for Temporomandibular Joints in Juvenile Idiopathic
Arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2018,70, 758–767. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40.
Buch, K.; Peacock, Z.S.; Resnick, C.M.; Rothermel, H.; Kaban, L.B.; Caruso, P. Regional diferences in temporomandibular joint
infammation in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: A dynamic post-contrast magnetic resonance imaging study. Int. J.
Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020,49, 1210–1216. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41.
Kupka, M.J.; Aguet, J.; Wagner, M.M.; Callaghan, F.M.; Goudy, S.L.; Abramowicz, S.; Kellenberger, C.J. Preliminary experience
with black bone magnetic resonance imaging for morphometry of the mandible and visualisation of the facial skeleton. Pediatr.
Radiol. 2022,52, 951–958. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42.
Schmidt, C.; Reich, R.; Koos, B.; Ertel, T.; Ahlers, M.O.; Arbogast, M.; Feurer, I.; Habermann-Krebs, M.; Hilgenfeld, T.; Hirsch, C.;
et al. Controversial Aspects of Diagnostics and Therapy of Arthritis of the Temporomandibular Joint in Rheumatoid and Juvenile
Idiopathic Arthritis-An Analysis of Evidence- and Consensus-Based Recommendations Based on an Interdisciplinary Guideline
Project. J. Clin. Med. 2022,11, 1761. [CrossRef]
43.
Bousquet, B.; Kellenberger, C.J.; Caprio, R.M.; Jindal, S.; Resnick, C.M. Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging Distinguish Juvenile
Idiopathic Arthritis From Other Causes of Progressive Temporomandibular Joint Destruction? J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.
2023
,81,
820–830. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Medicina 2023,59, 1409 14 of 17
44.
Bag, A.K.; Gaddikeri, S.; Singhal, A.; Hardin, S.; Tran, B.D.; Medina, J.A.; Cure, J.K. Imaging of the temporomandibular joint: An
update. World J. Radiol. 2014,6, 567–582. [CrossRef]
45.
El Assar de la Fuente, S.; Angenete, O.; Jellestad, S.; Tzaribachev, N.; Koos, B.; Rosendahl, K. Juvenile idiopathic arthritis and the
temporomandibular joint: A comprehensive review. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 2016,44, 597–607. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46.
Stoustrup, P.; Lerman, M.A.; Twilt, M. The Temporomandibular Joint in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis. Rheum. Dis. Clin. N. Am.
2021,47, 607–617. [CrossRef]
47. Stoustrup, P.; Twilt, M. Improving treatment of the temporomandibular joint in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: Let’s face it. Expert
Rev. Clin. Immunol. 2019,15, 1119–1121. [CrossRef]
48.
Bollhalder, A.; Patcas, R.; Eichenberger, M.; Müller, L.; Schroeder-Kohler, S.; Saurenmann, R.K.; Kellenberger, C.J. Magnetic
Resonance Imaging Followup of Temporomandibular Joint Inflammation, Deformation, and Mandibular Growth in Juvenile
Idiopathic Arthritis Patients Receiving Systemic Treatment. J. Rheumatol. 2020,47, 909–916. [CrossRef]
49.
Kinard, B.; Goldberg, B.; Kau, C.; Abramowicz, S. Clinical trials of temporomandibular joint involvement of juvenile idiopathic
arthritis. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2021,131, 617–619. [CrossRef]
50.
Stoll, M.L.; Amin, D.; Powell, K.K.; Poholek, C.H.; Strait, R.H.; Aban, I.; Beukelman, T.; Young, D.W.; Cron, R.Q.; Waite, P.D.
Risk Factors for Intraarticular Heterotopic Bone Formation in the Temporomandibular Joint in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.
J. Rheumatol. 2018,45, 1301–1307. [CrossRef]
51.
Lochbuhler, N.; Saurenmann, R.K.; Muller, L.; Kellenberger, C.J. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Assessment of Temporomandibular
Joint Involvement and Mandibular Growth Following Corticosteroid Injection in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis. J. Rheumatol.
2015
,
42, 1514–1522. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52.
Resnick, C.M.; Pedersen, T.K.; Abramowicz, S.; Twilt, M.; Stoustrup, P.B. Time to Reconsider Management of the Temporo-
mandibular Joint in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2018,76, 1145–1146. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53.
Olsen-Bergem, H.; Bjornland, T. A cohort study of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and arthritis of the temporomandibu-
lar joint: Outcome of arthrocentesis with and without the use of steroids. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.
2014
,43, 990–995.
[CrossRef]
54.
Alstergren, P.; Larsson, P.T.; Kopp, S. Successful treatment with multipleintra-articular injections of infliximab in a patient with
psoriatic arthritis. Scand. J. Rheumatol. 2008,37, 155–157. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55.
Stoll, M.L.; Cron, R.Q.; Saurenmann, R.K. Systemic and intraarticular antiinflammatory therapy of temporomandibular joint
arthritis in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Semin. Orthod. 2015,21, 125–133. [CrossRef]
56.
Stoll, M.L.; Morlandt, A.B.; Teerawattanapong, S.; Young, D.; Waite, P.D.; Cron, R.Q. Safety and efficacy of intra-articular
infliximab therapy for treatment-resistant temporomandibular joint arthritis in children: A retrospective study. Rheumatology
2013,52, 554–559. [CrossRef]
57.
Frid, P.; Resnick, C.; Abramowicz, S.; Stoustrup, P.; Nørholt, S.E. Surgical correction of dentofacial deformities in juvenile
idiopathic arthritis: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019,48, 1032–1042. [CrossRef]
58.
Norholt, S.E.; Pedersen, T.K.; Herlin, T. Functional changes following distraction osteogenesis treatment of asymmetric mandibular
growth deviation in unilateral juvenile idiopathic arthritis: A prospective study with long-term follow-up. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac.
Surg. 2013,42, 329–336. [CrossRef]
59.
Svensson, B.; Adell, R. Costochondral grafts to replace mandibular condyles in juvenile chronic arthritis patients: Long-term
effects on facial growth. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 1998,26, 275–285. [CrossRef]
60.
Saeed, N.; Hensher, R.; McLeod, N.; Kent, J. Reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint autogenous compared with alloplastic.
Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2002,40, 296–299. [CrossRef]
61.
Hechler, B.L.; Matthews, N.S. Role of alloplastic reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint in the juvenile idiopathic arthritis
population. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2021,59, 21–27. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62.
Stoustrup, P.; Pedersen, T.K.; Nørholt, S.E.; Resnick, C.M.; Abramowicz, S. Interdisciplinary Management of Dentofacial Deformity
in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2020,32, 117–134. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63.
Trivedi, B.; Wolford, L.M.; Kesterke, M.J.; Pinto, L.P. Does Combined Temporomandibular Joint Reconstruction With Patient Fitted
Total Joint Prosthesis and Orthognathic Surgery Reduce Symptoms in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Patients? J. Oral Maxillofac.
Surg. 2022,80, 267–275. [CrossRef]
64.
Raffaini, M.; Arcuri, F. Orthognathic surgery for juvenile idiopathic arthritis of the temporomandibular joint: A critical reappraisal
based on surgical experience. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2022,51, 799–805. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65.
Oye, F.; Bjornland, T.; Store, G. Mandibular osteotomies in patients with juvenile rheumatoid arthritic disease. Scand. J. Rheumatol.
2003,32, 168–173. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66.
Leshem, D.; Tompson, B.; Britto, J.A.; Forrest, C.R.; Phillips, J.H. Orthognathic surgery in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis patients.
Plast Reconstr. Surg. 2006,117, 1941–1946. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67.
Pagnoni, M.; Amodeo, G.; Fadda, M.T.; Brauner, E.; Guarino, G.; Virciglio, P.; Iannetti, G. Juvenile idiopathic/rheumatoid arthritis
and orthognatic surgery without mandibular osteotomies in the remittent phase. J. Craniofac. Surg.
2013
,24, 1940–1945. [CrossRef]
68.
Ma, K.S.K.; Illescas Ralda, M.M.; Veeravalli, J.J.; Wang, L.T.; Thota, E.; Huang, J.Y.; Kao, C.T.; Wei, J.C.C.; Resnick, C.M. Patients
with juvenile idiopathic arthritis are at increased risk for obstructive sleep apnoea: A population-based cohort study. Eur. J.
Orthod. 2022,44, 222–231. [CrossRef]
Medicina 2023,59, 1409 15 of 17
69.
Ward, T.M.; Archbold, K.; Lentz, M.; Ringold, S.; Wallace, C.A.; Landis, C.A. Sleep disturbance, daytime sleepiness, and
neurocognitive performance in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Sleep 2010,33, 252–259. [CrossRef]
70.
Tegelberg, A.; Kopp, S. Short-term effect of physical training on temporomandibular joint disorder in individuals with rheumatoid
arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Acta Odontol. Scand. 1988,46, 49–56. [CrossRef]
71.
Stoustrup, P.; Kristensen, K.D.; Küseler, A.; Verna, C.; Herlin, T.; Pedersen, T.K. Management of temporomandibular joint
arthritis-related orofacial symptoms in juvenile idiopathic arthritis by the use of a stabilization splint. Scand. J. Rheumatol.
2014
,
43, 137–145. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
72.
Gonzalez-Garcia, R.; Martin-Granizo, R. Arthroscopic Disc Repositioning Techniques of the Temporomandibular Joint: Part 1:
Sutures. Atlas Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2022,30, 175–183. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
73.
Martin-Granizo, R.; Gonzalez-Garcia, R. Arthroscopic Disc Repositioning Techniques of the Temporomandibular Joint Part 2:
Resorbable Pins. Atlas Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2022,30, 185–191. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74.
Israel, H.A. Technique for placement of a discal traction suture during temporomandibular joint arthroscopy. J. Oral Maxillofac.
Surg. 1989,47, 311–313. [CrossRef]
75.
Tarro, A.W. Arthroscopic treatment of anterior disc displacement: A preliminary report. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.
1989
,47, 353–358.
[CrossRef]
76.
Ohnishi, M. Arthroscopic laser surgery and suturing for temporomandibular joint disorders: Technique and clinical results.
Arthroscopy 1991,7, 212–220. [CrossRef]
77.
Kondoh, T. Arthroscopic traction suturing. Treatment of internal derangement by arthroscopic repositioning and suturing of the
disk. In Advances in Diagnostic and Surgical Arthroscopy of the Temporomandibular Joint; Clark, G.T., Sanders, B., Bertolami, C.N.,
Eds.; WB Saunders Company: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1993; pp. 117–127.
78. Tarro, A.W. A fully visualized arthroscopic disc suturing technique. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1994,52, 362–369. [CrossRef]
79.
Goizueta Adame, C.C.; Munoz-Guerra, M.F. The posterior double pass suture in repositioning of the temporomandibular disc
during arthroscopic surgery: A report of 16 cases. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2012,40, 86–91. [CrossRef]
80.
McCain, J.P.; Podrasky, A.E.; Zabiegalski, N.A. Arthroscopic disc repositioning and suturing: A preliminary report. J. Oral
Maxillofac. Surg. 1992,50, 568–579. [CrossRef]
81.
Yang, C.; Cai, X.Y.; Chen, M.J.; Zhang, S.Y. New arthroscopic disc repositioning and suturing technique for treating an anteriorly
displaced disc of the temporomandibular joint: Part I—Technique introduction. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.
2012
,41, 1058–1063.
[CrossRef]
82.
Onishi, M. Arthroscopy of the temporomandibular joint (author’s transl). Kokubyo Gakkai Zasshi
1975
,42, 207–213. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
83.
Zhang, S.Y.; Liu, X.M.; Yang, C.; Cai, X.Y.; Chen, M.J.; Haddad, M.S.; Yun, B.; Chen, Z.Z. New arthroscopic disc repositioning and
suturing technique for treating internal derangement of the temporomandibular joint: Part II—Magnetic resonance imaging
evaluation. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2010,68, 1813–1817. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84.
Jerez, D.; Laissle, G.; Fuenzalida, C.; Uribe, S. Modification to Yang’s Arthroscopic Discopexy Technique for Temporomandibular
Joint Disc Displacement: A Technical Note. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2022,80, 989–995. [CrossRef]
85.
Martinez-Gimeno, C.; Garcia-Hernandez, A.; Martinez-Martinez, R. Single portal arthroscopic temporomandibular joint dis-
copexy: Technique and results. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2021,49, 171–176. [CrossRef]
86.
Millon-Cruz, A.; Martin-Granizo Lopez, R. Long-term clinical outcomes of arthroscopic discopexy with resorbable pins.
J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2020,48, 1074–1079. [CrossRef]
87.
Martin-Granizo, R.; Millon-Cruz, A. Discopexy using resorbable pins in temporomandibular joint arthroscopy: Clinical and
magnetic resonance imaging medium-term results. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2016,44, 479–486. [CrossRef]
88.
Goizueta-Adame, C.C.; Pastor-Zuazaga, D.; Orts Banon, J.E. Arthroscopic disc fixation to the condylar head. Use of resorbable
pins for internal derangement of the temporomandibular joint (stage II-IV). Preliminary report of 34 joints. J Craniomaxillofac.
Surg. 2014,42, 340–346. [CrossRef]
89.
Loureiro Sato, F.R.; Tralli, G. Arthroscopic discopexy technique with anchors for treatment of temporomandibular joint internal
derangement: Clinical and magnetic resonance imaging evaluation. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2020,48, 501–507. [CrossRef]
90.
Abdelrehem, A.; Hu, Y.K.; Yang, C.; Zheng, J.S.; Shen, P.; Shen, Q.C. Arthroscopic versus open disc repositioning and suturing
techniques for the treatment of temporomandibular joint anterior disc displacement: 3-year follow-up study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac.
Surg. 2021,50, 1351–1360. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
91.
Askar, H.; Aronovich, S.; Christensen, B.J.; McCain, J.; Hakim, M. Is Arthroscopic Disk Repositioning Equally Efficacious to Open
Disk Repositioning? A Systematic Review. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2021,79, 2030–2041. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
92.
Santos, T.S.; Pagotto, L.E.C.; Santos Nascimento, E.; Rezende da Cunha, L.; Serra Cassano, D.; Goncalves, J.R. Effectiveness of disk
repositioning and suturing comparing open-joint versus arthroscopic techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral
Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2021,132, 506–513. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
93.
McCain, J.P.; Hossameldin, R.H.; Srouji, S.; Maher, A. Arthroscopic discopexy is effective in managing temporomandibular joint
internal derangement in patients with Wilkes stage II and III. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2015,73, 391–401. [CrossRef]
94.
Murakami, K.I.; Tsuboi, Y.; Bessho, K.; Yokoe, Y.; Nishida, M.; Iizuka, T. Outcome of arthroscopic surgery to the temporomandibu-
lar joint correlates with stage of internal derangement: Five-year follow-up study. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.
1998
,36, 30–34.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Medicina 2023,59, 1409 16 of 17
95.
Sah, M.K.; Abdelrehem, A.; Chen, S.; Shen, P.; Jiao, Z.; Hu, Y.K.; Nie, X.; Yang, C. Prognostic indicators of arthroscopic discopexy
for management of temporomandibular joint closed lock. Sci. Rep. 2022,12, 3194. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
96.
Dong, M.; Jiao, Z.; Sun, Q.; Tao, X.; Yang, C.; Qiu, W. The magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of condylar new bone
remodeling after Yang’s TMJ arthroscopic surgery. Sci. Rep. 2021,11, 5219. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
97.
Davis, C.M.; Hakim, M.; Choi, D.D.; Behrman, D.A.; Israel, H.; McCain, J.P. Early Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Management
of the Failing Alloplastic Temporomandibular Joint Prosthesis. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020,78, 903–907. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
98.
Neff, A.; McLeod, N.; Spijkervet, F.; Riechmann, M.; Vieth, U.; Kolk, A.; Sidebottom, A.J.; Bonte, B.; Speculand, B.; Saridin, C.;
et al. The ESTMJS (European Society of Temporomandibular Joint Surgeons) Consensus and Evidence-Based Recommendations
on Management of Condylar Dislocation. J. Clin. Med. 2021,10, 5068. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
99.
Renapurkar, S.K.; Laskin, D.M. Injectable Agents Versus Surgery for Recurrent Temporomandibular Joint Dislocation. Oral
Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2018,30, 343–349. [CrossRef]
100.
Fu, K.Y.; Chen, H.M.; Sun, Z.P.; Zhang, Z.K.; Ma, X.C. Long-term efficacy of botulinum toxin type A for the treatment of habitual
dislocation of the temporomandibular joint. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2010,48, 281–284. [CrossRef]
101.
Borghol, K.; Abdelrahman, A.; Pigadas, N. Guided botulinum toxin injection to the lateral pterygoid muscles for recurrent
dislocation of the temporomandibular joint. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2021,59, 845–846. [CrossRef]
102.
Tocaciu, S.; McCullough, M.J.; Dimitroulis, G. Surgical management of recurrent TMJ dislocation-a systematic review. Oral
Maxillofac. Surg. 2019,23, 35–45. [CrossRef]
103.
Machon, V.; Abramowicz, S.; Paska, J.; Dolwick, M.F. Autologous blood injection for the treatment of chronic recurrent temporo-
mandibular joint dislocation. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2009,67, 114–119. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
104.
Coser, R.; da Silveira, H.; Medeiros, P.; Ritto, F.G. Autologous blood injection for the treatment of recurrent mandibular dislocation.
Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2015,44, 1034–1037. [CrossRef]
105.
Hegab, A.F. Treatment of chronic recurrent dislocation of the temporomandibular joint with injection of autologous blood alone,
intermaxillary fixation alone, or both together: A prospective, randomised, controlled clinical trial. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.
2013,51, 813–817. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
106.
Yoshida, H.; Nakatani, Y.I.; Gamoh, S.; Shimizutani, K.; Morita, S. Clinical outcome after 36 months of treatment with injections of
autologous blood for recurrent dislocation of the temporomandibular joint. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.
2018
,56, 64–66. [CrossRef]
107.
Daif, E.T. Autologous blood injection as a new treatment modality for chronic recurrent temporomandibular joint dislocation.
Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2010,109, 31–36. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
108.
Machon, V.; Levorova, J.; Hirjak, D.; Wisniewski, M.; Drahos, M.; Sidebottom, A.; Foltan, R. A prospective assessment of outcomes
following the use of autologous blood for the management of recurrent temporomandibular joint dislocation. Oral Maxillofac.
Surg. 2018,22, 53–57. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
109.
Bayoumi, A.M.; Al-Sebaei, M.O.; Mohamed, K.M.; Al-Yamani, A.O.; Makrami, A.M. Arthrocentesis followed by intra-articular
autologous blood injection for the treatment of recurrent temporomandibular joint dislocation. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.
2014
,
43, 1224–1228. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
110.
Sharma, V.; Anchlia, S.; Sadhwani, B.S.; Bhatt, U.; Rajpoot, D. Arthrocentesis Followed by Autologous Blood Injection in the
Treatment of Chronic Symptomatic Subluxation of Temporomandibular Joint. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.
2022
,21, 1218–1226.
[CrossRef]
111.
Refai, H. Long-term therapeutic effects of dextrose prolotherapy in patients with hypermobility of the temporomandibular joint:
A single-arm study with 1-4 years’ follow up. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017,55, 465–470. [CrossRef]
112.
Nagori, S.A.; Jose, A.; Gopalakrishnan, V.; Roy, I.D.; Chattopadhyay, P.K.; Roychoudhury, A. The efficacy of dextrose prolotherapy
over placebo for temporomandibular joint hypermobility: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Oral Rehabil.
2018
,45,
998–1006. [CrossRef]
113.
Sit, R.W.; Reeves, K.D.; Zhong, C.C.; Wong, C.H.L.; Wang, B.; Chung, V.C.; Wong, S.Y.; Rabago, D. Efficacy of hypertonic dextrose
injection (prolotherapy) in temporomandibular joint dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci. Rep.
2021
,11,
14638. [CrossRef]
114.
Pandey, S.; Baidya, M.; Srivastava, A.; Garg, H. Comparison of autologous blood prolotherapy and 25% dextrose prolotherapy for
the treatment of chronic recurrent temporomandibular joint dislocation on the basis of clinical parameters: A retrospective study.
Natl. J. Maxillofac. Surg. 2022,13, 398. [CrossRef]
115.
Yoda, T.; Ogi, N.; Yoshitake, H.; Kawakami, T.; Takagi, R.; Murakami, K.; Yuasa, H.; Kondoh, T.; Tei, K.; Kurita, K. Clinical
guidelines for total temporomandibular joint replacement. Jpn. Dent. Sci. Rev. 2020,56, 77–83. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
116.
Khattak, Y.R.; Arif, H.; Gull, H.; Ahmad, I. Extended total temporomandibular joint reconstruction prosthesis: A comprehensive
analysis. J. Stomatol. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2023,124, 101404. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
117.
Al-Qudsi, A.; Matel, D.; Mercuri, L.; Shah, B.; Emmerling, M.; Murphy, J. Utilization of extended temporomandibular joint
replacements in patients with hemifacial microsomia. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2023,23, 133–139. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
118.
Elledge, R.; Mercuri, L.G.; Speculand, B. Extended total temporomandibular joint replacements: A classification system. Br. J.
Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2018,56, 578–581. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
119.
Elledge, R.O.C.; Higginson, J.; Mercuri, L.G.; Speculand, B. Validation of an extended total joint replacement (eTJR) classification
system for the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2021,59, 788–791. [CrossRef]
Medicina 2023,59, 1409 17 of 17
120.
Higginson, J.; Panayides, C.; Speculand, B.; Mercuri, L.G.; Elledge, R.O.C. Modification of an extended total temporomandibular
joint replacement (eTMJR) classification system. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2022,60, 983–986. [CrossRef]
121.
Mommaerts, M.Y.; Nicolescu, I.; Dorobantu, M.; De Meurechy, N. Extended Total Temporomandibular Joint Replacement with
Occlusal Adjustments: Pitfalls, Patient-reported Outcomes, Subclassification, and a New Paradigm. Ann. Maxillofac. Surg.
2020
,
10, 73–79. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
