Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2024 Apr 1;110(4):2187-2195.
doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001129.

Comparison of disc position stability and condylar bone remodelling between two open disc repositioning surgeries: a retrospective single-centre cohort study

Chuan Lu  1 , Jieyun Zhao  1 , Xiaoyu Zhang  1 , Xingda Fan  1 , Xin Nie  2 , Chuangqi Yu  1 , Chi Yang  1 , Dongmei He  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of disc position stability and condylar bone remodelling between two open disc repositioning surgeries: a retrospective single-centre cohort study

Chuan Lu et al. Int J Surg. .

Abstract

Background and objective: Open suturing (OSu) and mini-screw anchor (MsA) are two commonly used open disc repositioning surgeries for anterior disc displacement (ADD) of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). This study assesses the differences in disc position stability (DPS) and condylar bone remodelling (CBR) between these two surgical procedures in a single centre.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study using MRI scans (pre-operation, 1 week and 12 months post-operation) of all patients who had open TMJ disc repositioning surgery from January 2016 to June 2021 at one centre through two surgical techniques (OSu and MsA) was performed. The predictor variable was technique (OSu and MsA). Outcome variables were DPS and CBR. During follow-up, DPS was rated as good, acceptable and poor, and CBR was graded as improved, unchanged, and degenerated. Multivariate analysis was used to compare the DPS and CBR at 12 months after adjusting five factors including age, sex, Wilkes stage, preoperative bone status (normal, mild/moderate abnormal) and the degree of disc repositioning (normal, overcorrected, and posteriorly repositioned). Relative risk (RR) for DPS and CBR was calculated by multivariate logistic regression.

Results: Three hundred eighty-five patients with 583 joints were included in the study. MRIs at 12 months showed that 514 joints (93.5%) had good DPS, and 344 joints (62.5%) had improved CBR. Multivariate analysis revealed that OSu had higher DPS (RR=2.95; 95% CI, 1.27-6.85) and better CBR (RR=1.58; 95% CI, 1.02-2.46) than MsA. Among the factors affecting DPS, females had better results than males (RR=2.63; 95% CI, 1.11-6.26) and overcorrected or posteriorly repositioned discs were more stable than normally repositioned discs (RR=5.84; 95% CI, 2.58-13.20). The improvement in CBR decreased with age increasing (RR=0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.93). Preoperative mild/moderate abnormal bone status had a higher probability of improved CBR compared to normal preoperative bone status (RR=2.60; 95% CI, 1.76-3.83).

Conclusion: OSu had better DPS and CBR than MsA. Sex and the degree of disc repositioning impacted DPS, while age and preoperative bone status affected CBR.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors have any relevant financial relationship(s) with a commercial interest.

Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Two procedures of open disc repositioning: (A) mini-screw anchor; (B) opening suturing.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Reference coordinates and degree of disc repositioning: (A) reference coordinates; (B) normal repositioning; (C) overcorrected repositioning; (D) posterior repositioning.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Condyle bone status: (A) normal bone; (B) mild bone abnormality; (C) moderate bone abnormality; (D) severe bone abnormality.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Disc position stability: (A) good; (B) acceptable; (C) poor. FU, follow-up; PO, post operation.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Definitions of condyle bone remodelling: (A) improved; (B) unchanged; (C) degenerated. FU, follow-up; PO, post operation.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Flow diagram of study objects selection. MsA, mini-screw anchor; OSu, open suturing; TMJ, temporomandibular joint.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Pei YP, Li HC, Zhong JW, et al. . The association between problematic smartphone use and the severity of temporomandibular disorders: a cross-sectional study. Front Public Health 2022;10:1042147. - PMC - PubMed
    1. List T, Jensen RH. Temporomandibular disorders: OLd ideas and new concepts. Cephalalgia 2017;37:692–704. - PubMed
    1. Lamot U, Strojan P, Surlan Popovic K. Magnetic resonance imaging of temporomandibular joint dysfunction-correlation with clinical symptoms, age, and gender. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013;116:258–263. - PubMed
    1. Moncada G, Cortes D, Millas R, et al. . Relationship between disk position and degenerative bone changes in temporomandibular joints of young subjects with TMD. An MRI study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014;38:269–276. - PubMed
    1. Dias IM, Cordeiro PC, Devito KL, et al. . Evaluation of temporomandibular joint disc displacement as a risk factor for osteoarthrosis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;45:313–317. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms