Page 292 - Demo

Chapter 11290Table 1. Quality assessment using the EPHPP tool. Selection biasDesign ConfoundersBlinding Data collection methodsWithdrawals and dropoutsOverall scoreWolford et al., 1997Moderate Moderate Weak Moderate Strong Weak WeakWolford et al., 2008Strong Moderate Weak Moderate Strong Weak WeakShanyong et al., 2015Moderate Moderate Weak Moderate Moderate Weak WeakWolford et al., 2016Strong Moderate Weak Moderate Moderate Weak WeakSelbong et al., 2016Moderate Weak Weak Moderate Moderate Weak WeakMercuri et al., 2008Strong Moderate Weak Moderate Moderate Weak WeakRoychoudhury et al., 2017Moderate Moderate Weak Moderate Strong Weak WeakResultsA computerized literature search was performed up to April 2018, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The following databases were used when The pilot study published by Wolford et al.(1) in 1997 included 15 patients who received AFG, providing a total of 22 treated joints. The control group consisted of twenty patients. All patients had the same type of prosthesis made by TMJ Concepts (Ventura, CA, USA). The authors described an increase of maximal incisal opening (MIO) of 11.8 mm at the 12 months of follow-up consultation next to an increase of 6.3 mm in the control group. There was no difference in the decrease of pain level. While 35% of the control group had heterotopic bone formation which required reoperation, none of the patients in the fat-grafted group were diagnosed with heterotopic calcifications or fibrosis. In 2008, Wolford et al.(3) published a second study with a larger patient sample to substantiate their results. One hundred fifteen patients were included in this study, and 5–20 cc of autologous fat from the abdominal wall was placed around the articulating portion of either the Christensen Nikolas de Meurechy NW.indd 290 05-06-2024 10:15