PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of autogenous extended mandibular ramus and coronoid process bone grafts for maxillofacial reconstructive surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twelve patients aged 23 to 76 years (mean, 52) who underwent extended ramus/coronoid process grafts for reconstruction of maxillofacial deformities due to trauma, alveolar atrophy, or iatrogenic nasal deformity. All patients had either unilateral or bilateral combined coronoid process-mandibular ramus bone grafts for their reconstruction. There was 1 nasal reconstruction, 2 unilateral mandibles, 1 bilateral mandible, 4 unilateral maxillas, 1 unilateral maxilla and mandible combined, and 1 bilateral maxilla and mandible combined. RESULTS: The procedure was considered a success when the patient's deformities were reconstructed ad integrum and when there were no failures of the dental implants placed in the augmented areas as of the longest follow-up. All patients were successfully reconstructed. There was 1 infection at a donor site that resolved with local care and oral antibiotics. All but 1 of the maxillary and mandibular alveolar augmentations underwent endosteal implant placement approximately 4 to 6 months following grafting. The nasal reconstruction restored normal function and symmetry. CONCLUSION: Using both the coronoid process of the mandible and the mandibular ramus as a source for autogenous bone graft can provide sufficient bone in quantity and quality for selected maxillofacial reconstructions. Copyright (c) 2010 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of autogenous extended mandibular ramus and coronoid process bone grafts for maxillofacial reconstructive surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twelve patients aged 23 to 76 years (mean, 52) who underwent extended ramus/coronoid process grafts for reconstruction of maxillofacial deformities due to trauma, alveolar atrophy, or iatrogenic nasal deformity. All patients had either unilateral or bilateral combined coronoid process-mandibular ramus bone grafts for their reconstruction. There was 1 nasal reconstruction, 2 unilateral mandibles, 1 bilateral mandible, 4 unilateral maxillas, 1 unilateral maxilla and mandible combined, and 1 bilateral maxilla and mandible combined. RESULTS: The procedure was considered a success when the patient's deformities were reconstructed ad integrum and when there were no failures of the dental implants placed in the augmented areas as of the longest follow-up. All patients were successfully reconstructed. There was 1 infection at a donor site that resolved with local care and oral antibiotics. All but 1 of the maxillary and mandibular alveolar augmentations underwent endosteal implant placement approximately 4 to 6 months following grafting. The nasal reconstruction restored normal function and symmetry. CONCLUSION: Using both the coronoid process of the mandible and the mandibular ramus as a source for autogenous bone graft can provide sufficient bone in quantity and quality for selected maxillofacial reconstructions. Copyright (c) 2010 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.