Literature DB >> 19116568

Application-specific selection of biomaterials for pediatric craniofacial reconstruction: developing a rational approach to guide clinical use.

Arun K Gosain1, Harvey Chim, Jugpal S Arneja.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Biomaterials provide an invaluable alternative to autogenous bone graft for pediatric craniofacial reconstruction. However, there is no uniform agreement on the choice of biomaterial for different reconstructive needs.
METHODS: Patients who had reconstruction of the craniofacial skeleton with alloplastic materials from 1994 to 2006 by a single surgeon were reviewed. Biomaterials used consisted of three classes: cement pastes, biomaterials designed to be replaced by bone, and prefabricated polymers. The study included 25 patients with a mean age of 5.5 years and a mean follow-up of 3.3 years.
RESULTS: Cement pastes used for onlay augmentation to the cranial skeleton in eight patients consisted of hydroxyapatite (n = 5) and calcium phosphate (n = 3). One patient had a postoperative infection that resolved with partial implant removal and antibiotics. Biomaterials designed to be replaced by bone consisted of bioactive glass (n = 3) and demineralized bone (n = 8), which were used for inlay reconstruction of full-thickness calvarial defects in 11 patients. Computed tomographic scanning showed adequate bone mineralization in nine patients; two of the three patients with calvarial defects greater than 5 cm in diameter demonstrated variable mineralization. Prefabricated porous polyethylene was used in six patients for either onlay malar augmentation (n = 3) or inlay calvarial reconstruction (n = 3). One patient had a peri-implant infection that resolved with aspiration, irrigation, and intravenous antibiotics.
CONCLUSIONS: The authors developed an algorithm to guide use of biomaterials in craniofacial reconstruction based on whether (1) growth of the underlying craniofacial skeleton is nearly complete (>90 percent); (2) onlay or inlay reconstruction is to be performed; and (3) the reconstruction is performed in a load-bearing or non-load-bearing area.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19116568     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318193478c

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  5 in total

Review 1.  Failures in cranioplasty - A clinical audit & review.

Authors:  N K Sahoo; Kapil Tomar; Ankur Thakral; Sanjay Kumar
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2020-11-20

2.  Calvarial reconstruction using high-density porous polyethylene cranial hemispheres.

Authors:  Nitin J Mokal; Mahinoor F Desai
Journal:  Indian J Plast Surg       Date:  2011-09

Review 3.  Complications after craniofacial reconstruction with calcium phosphate cements: a case report and review of the literature.

Authors:  Fereydoun Pourdanesh; Noorahmad Latifi; Fatemeh Latifi
Journal:  J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2018-10-26

4.  Current Concepts in Cranial Reconstruction: Review of Alloplastic Materials.

Authors:  Darin T Johnston; Steven J Lohmeier; Hannah C Langdell; Bryan J Pyfer; Jordan Komisarow; David B Powers; Detlev Erdmann
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-08-19

Review 5.  Biomimetic approaches to complex craniofacial defects.

Authors:  Chad M Teven; Sean Fisher; Guillermo A Ameer; Tong-Chuan He; Russell R Reid
Journal:  Ann Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2015 Jan-Jun
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.