Christensen vs Biomet Microfixation alloplastic TMJ implant: Are there improvements? A numerical study

The objective of this study was to compare the load transfer mechanism and behavior of two total temporomandibular joint (TMJ) prostheses: Biomet and Christensen TMJ models were simulated.Computed tomography (CT) images from a specific patient were used to generate two models for use in simulation of implantation for the total temporomandibular prostheses. Three finite element models were created in all. One considered the intact temporomandibular joint and two received a temporomandibular implant. In the simulation we considered the five most important muscles acting on the mandible and incisor teeth support.The Christensen model reduced strain in the opposite condyle by around 50% while increasing strain in the implanted condyle. The changes in the posterior side of the implanted condyle present an increase of five times the minimum principal strain, suggesting some bone fatigue. With the Biomet implant, the reduction in strain in the implanted condyle on the posterior side was around 100%, suggesting the possibility of some bone loss proximally near the resection plane.Based on our results, we conclude that in both models the implants influence the behavior of the mandible by improving the symmetry of the mandible and strain distribution. The Biomet implant modifies the behavior of the mandible slightly and presents some improvements over the Christensen TMJ model in strain distribution and tensions in the opposite intact disc similar to the non-implanted situation.