. 2021 Mar 10;11(2):334–343. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2021.02.014

Table 5.

FEA models of PS-TMJR.

S No	Author	Model	Outcome
1	Ramos 2014⁵⁰	2 FEA models of TMJR cadaveric mandible; external connection with screws internal intramedullary fix	Strain distributions significantly differ at external surface of mandible in displacements. Intramedullary fixation increased strains in cancellous tissue. Strain distribution influenced by number and distribution of screws. Intramedullary fixation better, as generates less strain
2	Ramos, Mesnard 2016⁵¹	FEA model of a cadaveric condyle innovative intramedullary implant	Increased strains in proximal region of condyle (140%). Maximum strain and stress generated with implant less than 2200με and 75 MPa in posterior region of cortical bone. Shortly after implant placement, stress and strain results within normal limits, similar to intact condyle.
3	Bekcioglu 2017⁵²	FEA model of TMJR Biomet	Intact model maximum von Mises stress: 252.697 N/mm sq at condyle and 5.418 N/mm sq at disc. At TMJ TJR implant 792.681 N/mm sq and at contralateral joint, 268.908 N/mm sq at condyle and 8.357 N/mm sq at disc. Unilateral TMJR cause increased stress at disc and contralateral condyle.
4	Abel 2015³⁴	Condylar support prosthesis (CSP)	Much lower stresses as allows physiological load transfer, reduces strain on the bone around the screws.
5	Kraeima 2018¹¹	5 human cadavers	Groningen TMJ prosthesis can be placed with great accuracy.
6	Chen⁵³	2 models of mandible, intact one-side, implanted other side	Maximum stress on UHMWPE surface 19.61 MPa, in mandible at condylar neck, 170.01 MPa. Peak von Mises stress on top screw of mandible, 236.08 MPa. For intact model, strain distribution symmetrical, for model with prosthesis, strain consistent, except last 24 mm, strain 41.4–58.3%.