Engineering Alloplastic Temporomandibular Joint Replacements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are part of a heterogeneous group of pathologies that manifest with a constellation of signs and symptoms. They are the most frequent cause of chronic orofacial pain and are prevalent in 12% of the general population. Despite the debilitating nature of these disorders, there is no standardization for treatment of the diseased temporomandibular joint (TMJ). In this review, we present an overview of the functional anatomy of the TMJ and the engineering concepts that must be understood to better understand the indications for surgical management, the types of available treatments and the requirements for reconstruction. A comparison is made of the clinical outcomes with autogenous versus alloplastic reconstruction, including a history of alloplastic materials and the design features of currently available implants. Emphasis is made on material selection, modulus, stiffness, notch sensitivity and modularity. For the treatment of TMD, engineered TMJ alloplastic replacements have had considerable promise with additional room for improvement using new materials and recent design concepts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".