Literature DB >> 21340562

Comparison of glass ionomer cement and incus interposition in reconstruction of incus long process defects.

Huseyin Dere1, Fatih Ozdogan, K Murat Ozcan, Adin Selcuk, Ibrahim Ozcan, Gokhan Gokturk.   

Abstract

The ossicles may be affected through the mass effect of the pathological tissue in chronic otitis media. Ossicular reconstruction may be accomplished using the patients' own ossicles or with alloplastic materials. Glass ionomer ossiculoplasty is a fast, efficient, safe and cost-effective method and it has been used more frequently in recent years. Forty-six patients who had surgery for chronic otitis media were included in this study. All patients had an incus long process defect and a normal stapes superstructure. Ossicular reconstruction was performed using glass ionomer cement (GIC) (Ketac-Cem, Espe Dental AG, Seefeld, Germany) in 23 patients (group 1), while incus interposition was performed in other 23 patients (group 2). Preoperative and postoperative air pure tone averages of the group 1 patients were 42.8 and 35.2 dB, respectively (p < 0.01). These values were 42.9 and 34.5 dB in group 2 (p < 0.01). Two groups were similar with respect to postoperative hearing gain (p > 0.05). The air bone gap of group 1 was 27 dB preoperatively and 20.7 dB postoperatively. These values were 28.7 and 20.2 dB, respectively, in group 2. The closure of air bone gap was statistically significant in both the groups (p < 0.01, p < 0.01). The comparison of the mean gains of the air bone gap revealed no difference between the groups (p > 0.05). In conclusion, the use of both GIC ossiculoplasty and incus interposition are efficient methods for reconstruction of incus long process and one is not superior to the other. A larger study population may be useful for comparison of these methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21340562     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-010-1454-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  15 in total

1.  Ossiculoplasty using incus interposition: hearing results and analysis of the middle ear risk index.

Authors:  Robert C O'Reilly; Steven P Cass; Barry E Hirsch; Donald B Kamerer; Richard A Bernat; Sherri P Poznanovic
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Can homograft ossicles still be used in ossiculoplasty?

Authors:  O Cura; T Kriazli; F Oztop
Journal:  Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord)       Date:  2000

3.  Ossicular reconstruction.

Authors:  D F Austin
Journal:  Otolaryngol Clin North Am       Date:  1972-02       Impact factor: 3.346

4.  Tympanoplasty with ionomeric cement.

Authors:  A D Kjeldsen; A M Grøntved
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol Suppl       Date:  2000

5.  Five-year report on partial ossicular replacement prostheses and total ossicular replacement prostheses.

Authors:  G D Smyth
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  1982 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.497

6.  Use of Mimix hydroxyapatite bone cement for difficult ossicular reconstruction.

Authors:  Joel A Goebel; Abraham Jacob
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.497

7.  Effects of ionomer cement on guinea pig cochleas.

Authors:  T Kobayashi; Y Hinohira; M Hyodo; G Bredberg; E Alsterborg
Journal:  Ear Nose Throat J       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 1.697

8.  Partial ossicular reconstruction: comparison of three different prostheses in clinical and experimental studies.

Authors:  Marcus Neudert; Thomas Zahnert; Nikoloz Lasurashvili; Matthias Bornitz; Zlatina Lavcheva; Christian Offergeld
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Tympanoplasty type II with ionomeric cement and titanium-gold-angle prostheses.

Authors:  M M Maassen; H P Zenner
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1998-11

10.  Incudostapedial rebridging ossiculoplasty with bone cement.

Authors:  Enver Ozer; Yildirim A Bayazit; Muzaffer Kanlikama; Semih Mumbuc; Zeki Ozen
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  7 in total

1.  Ossicular reconstruction: hydroxyapatite bone cement versus incus remodelling: how to manage incudostapedial discontinuity.

Authors:  Thomas Somers; Vincent Van Rompaey; Gerd Claes; Liesbeth Salembier; Joost van Dinther; Zarowski Andrzej; Erwin Offeciers
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  The use of bone cement for ossicular chain defects.

Authors:  M Tayyar Kalcioglu; Mehmet Tan; Jelle Fleerakkers
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-01-03       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Glass ionomer cement in otological microsurgery: experience over 16 years.

Authors:  F Righini-Grunder; R Häusler; S Chongvisal; M Caversaccio
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-09-10       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Evaluation on shear bond strength of different glass ionomer and hydroxy apatite cements used in ossiculoplasty.

Authors:  M Tayyar Kalcıoğlu; İsmail Hakkı Uzun; Muhammet Yalçın; Meral Arslan Malkoç; Ayşe Tuba Öğreten; Fatih Mehmet Hanege
Journal:  Balkan Med J       Date:  2015-01-01       Impact factor: 2.021

5.  Endoscopic transcanal management of incus long process defects: rebridging with bone cement versus incus interposition.

Authors:  Waleed Moneir; Mohammed Abdelbadie Salem; Ahmed Hemdan
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-06-18       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Use of Glass Ionomer Cement for Incudostapedial Rebridging Ossiculoplasty.

Authors:  Ankur Mohan; Sanjeev Bhagat; Dimple Sahni; Gurkiran Kaur
Journal:  Iran J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2021-03

7.  Comparison of Hydroxyapatite Prosthesis and Incus Interposition in Incus Defects.

Authors:  Suphi Bulğurcu; Bünyamin Dikilitaş; İbrahim Çukurova
Journal:  Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-06-01
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.