Page 106 - Demo

Chapter 4104ObjectiveTo the best of our knowledge, two published meta-analyses compared the results of stock and PSI TMJ TJR systems.(8,9) Whereas the metaanalysis by Zou et al.(9) evaluated both the short- (≤3 years) and longterm results (> 3 years), Johnson et al.(8) did not make this distinction and evaluated the Biomet Lorenz, TMJ Concepts, and Nexus CMF systems over the entire follow-up period as a whole. As a result, both types of prosthetic systems are compared to one another without clearly defined endpoints in time. This resulted in the inclusion of articles with a 6-month follow-up being compared with those with a 60-month follow-up. This increases the risk of skewing the post-operative results.This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare post-operative results in patients who were treated with either a PSI or stock prosthesis, at well-defined moments in time, to determine if there are significant differences in post-operative results between these two approaches. We hypothesized that the use of a CAD/CAM approach with the development of a PSI would lead to better post-operative results.Materials and methodsStudy designWe performed a systematic review by conducting a computerized literature search. The search was performed up to August 15, 2018, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The following databases were used: PubMed Central, Web of Science, Cochrane Library Plus, and EMBASE. The following heading was used to define the search string: (“Temporomandibular Joint” OR TMJ) AND (“Prosthesis” OR “Prostheses” OR “Implant” OR “Total Joint Replacement”). The search was conducted using both medical subject headings (MeSH) and free text words. The exact combination in which these search terms were used depended on the database and can be found in Table 1. A manual search of reference lists of the included articles was also performed. Nikolas de Meurechy NW.indd 104 05-06-2024 10:14