2013
DOI: 10.1177/0022034513494817
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tensile Characterization of Porcine Temporomandibular Joint Disc Attachments

Abstract: The frequency and impact of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders necessitate research in characterizing the joint's function. The 6 discal attachments have not yet been systematically characterized under tension. Understanding their role in joint function may guide our study of TMJ pathologies, including disc displacement. In the present study, a porcine model was used to characterize the attachments in tension anteroposteriorly and mediolaterally, based on previously identified similarities in the porcine … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
36
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
36
0
Order By: Relevance
“…19 The discs were excised en bloc, as previously described. 20 Samples were taken from anterior (A), posterior (P), lateral (L), medial (M), and central (C) regions for analyses. Before TMJ excision, structural elements of the TMJ were evaluated using cone beam computer tomography (CBCT).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…19 The discs were excised en bloc, as previously described. 20 Samples were taken from anterior (A), posterior (P), lateral (L), medial (M), and central (C) regions for analyses. Before TMJ excision, structural elements of the TMJ were evaluated using cone beam computer tomography (CBCT).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These correspond to the most common directions of disc displacement, suggesting compromised attachments contribute to disc displacement [12].…”
Section: Pathology Influences Biomechanicalmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Additionally, anisotropy was demonstrated in the fibrocartilaginous TMJ discal attachments. Anteroposteriorly, the lateral attachment was stiffest (8.3 MPa) compared to the anterior superior (1.4 MPa) attachment [12]. Mediolaterally, the posterior superior attachment stiffness (16.3 MPa) exceeded that of the medial attachment (1.4 MPa) [12].…”
Section: Mechanical Properties Vary Topographicallymentioning
confidence: 90%
See 2 more Smart Citations