2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.01.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Finite element analysis of a condylar support prosthesis to replace the temporomandibular joint

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There are two types of TMJ TJR: stock (adjusts the prosthesis to the implantation site) and custom (manufacture is personalized in order to find an ideal fit for each case). Customized TMJ TJRs present better subjective and objective results in relation to stock TMJ TJRs, 13 15 obtaining an improvement in quality of life in up to 85% of cases. The success criteria of Petty W. for total joint replacement coupled to the temporomandibular joint (Table 1), provide a rationale for the manufacture and use of these prostheses.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are two types of TMJ TJR: stock (adjusts the prosthesis to the implantation site) and custom (manufacture is personalized in order to find an ideal fit for each case). Customized TMJ TJRs present better subjective and objective results in relation to stock TMJ TJRs, 13 15 obtaining an improvement in quality of life in up to 85% of cases. The success criteria of Petty W. for total joint replacement coupled to the temporomandibular joint (Table 1), provide a rationale for the manufacture and use of these prostheses.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There have been many reports on finite element analysis of TMJ prosthesis, 9 mainly focusing on the condyle component, [10][11][12][13] whereas only a few reports focused on the analysis of the fossa component. Ramos et al 14…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There have been many reports on nite element analysis of TMJ prosthesis ( 9), mainly focusing on the condyle component (10)(11)(12)(13), whereas only few reports focused on the analysis of the fossa component. Ramos et al ( 14) compared a Christensen standard fossa component model with a customized one, with a standard condyle prosthesis in both models.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%