Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TECHNICAL NOTE
Received: 12 November 2020 / Accepted: 3 April 2021 / Published online: 25 April 2021
Ó The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2021
123
J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. (Oct–Dec 2021) 20(4):702–705 703
The digitally modeled cutting and positioning guides were Prior to the surgical approach, the patient with TMJ
exported for aluminum machining. The cranial guide had ankylosis was submitted to prophylactic embolization of
the following characteristics: adaptation to the zygomatic the ipsilateral maxillary artery, as described by Hos-
arch and the lateral face of the ankylotic block, presenting, sameldin et al. [4]. Subsequently, after nasotracheal intu-
in the upper portion, four holes for 1.5 mm screws that bation using nasofibroscopy, the joint was accessed
coincide with the definitive cranial component of the future through an endaural and submandibular incision with dis-
articular prosthesis and a lower rod that prevents the section by planes until exposing the ankylotic block and the
rotation of the guide during installation, and offers an mandible ramus[1]. After exposure, the prefabricated cut-
intermediate space which will determine the height and ting guides were installed on the zygomatic arch and the
extent of the upper limit of the osteotomy (Fig. 1). Like- mandibular ramus, and temporarily fixed with screws
wise, the mandibular guide design allows anatomical (Fig. 3). The guided osteotomies were performed with
adaptation to the lateral face of the mandibular ramus with piezoelectric saw, and then the ankylotic block was care-
eight holes for 2.0 mm screws that match the holes in the fully removed. This was followed by the planing of the
definitive mandibular component. The upper limit of this mandibular fossa for a correct adaptation of the cranial
guide was determined after the identification of the component of the definitive prosthesis. The definitive
mandibular foramen, aiming to preserve the lower alveolar components were then placed on the base of the skull and
nerve (Fig. 2). in the mandibular ramus and fixed in the position previ-
ously determined by the guides (Fig. 4). There was no need
for maxillomandibular block, avoiding transoperative
communication with the oral cavity.
Fig. 1 Cranial surgical guide drawing based on the bone surface of of the osteotomy, which must be completed with a minimum distance
three-dimensional reconstruction. An upper shaft with four 1.5 mm of 0.5 mm from the external auditory canal
screws (arrow) and a lower shaft (asterisk) guide the height and extent
123
704 J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. (Oct–Dec 2021) 20(4):702–705
Fig. 2 Mandibular surgical guide drawing based on the bone surface should be performed with a minimum distance of 10 mm from the
of three-dimensional reconstruction of the mandible ramus (arrow). foramen of the mandible. This minimizes the risk of neural damage
The lower limit of the osteotomy in the ankylotic block (asterisk)
Fig. 3 Intraoperative view of the cutting guides and positioning of the cranial and mandibular components, enabling the reproduction of the
planned cuts virtually
Declarations
Ethics Approval Ethics approval was not required. The patient has
permitted the images use.
References
Fig. 4 Intraoperative view and post-operative computed tomography 1. Wolford L, Movahed R, Teschke M, Fimmers R, Havard D,
with three-dimensional reconstruction of the customized prosthesis Schneiderman E (2016) Temporomandibular joint ankylosis can be
installed in a single phase with the aid of cutting guides successfully treated with TMJ Concepts patient-fitted total joint
123
J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. (Oct–Dec 2021) 20(4):702–705 705
prosthesis and autogenous fat grafts. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 4. Hossameldin RH, Mccain JP, Dabus G (2017) Prophylactic
74:1215–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.01.017 embolisation of the internal maxillary artery in patients with
2. Siegmund BJ, Winter K, Meyer-Marcotty P, Rustemeyer J (2019) ankylosis of the temporomandibular joint. Br J Oral Maxillofac
Reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint: a comparison Surg 55:584–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2017.03.001
between prefabricated and customized alloplastic prosthetic total
joint systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 48:1066–1071. https://
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2019.02.002
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
3. Bouloux G, Koslin MG, Ness G, Shafer D (2017) Temporo-
mandibular joint surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 75:e195–e223.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2017.04.027
123