Page 119 - Demo

Stock or patient-specific TMJ replacement1174Table 7. Risk of bias assessment of non-randomized controlled trials of stock prosthesis using the MINORS scale(10).Study (year)Clearly stated aimInclusion of consecutive patientsProspective data collectionEndpoints appropriate to study aimUnbiased assessment of the study endpointFollow-up period appropriate to study aim<5% Lost to follow-upProspective calculation of study sizeAdequate statistical analysesTotalWestermark(19) (2010) 2 2 2 2 / 2 2 0 2 14/16Giannakopoulos(3) (2012) 2 2 2 2 / 2 0 0 2 12/16Machon(25) (2012) 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 14/18Lobo-Leandro(20) (2013) 2 2 2 2 / 2 0 0 2 12/16Dimitroulis(21) (2014) 2 2 0 2 / 2 0 0 2 10/16Gonzalez-Perez(17) (2016) 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 15/18Abbreviation: MINORS: Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies.DiscussionWhile our approach was different from that of Zou et al.(9) and Johnson et al.(8), the statistical findings were similar for the three meta-analyses. Despite the conviction of Mercuri et al.(5) and many other surgeons, the current available data do not seem to indicate a clear advantage of patient-fitted implant systems over their stock counterparts. However, several significant remarks must be made before reaching this conclusion, and several confounders should be mentioned.Bias of pooled dataWhile Lobo Leandro et al.(20) noted similar post-operative MMO results compared to the other included articles, both their mean pre-operative mouth opening at 11.3 mm and mean post-operative dietary VAS scores of 9.92 and 9.94 at 1 and 3 years post-operatively are significantly lower Nikolas de Meurechy NW.indd 117 05-06-2024 10:14