Literature DB >> 28005754

Cranioplasty: Review of Materials.

Bruno Zanotti1, Nicola Zingaretti, Angela Verlicchi, Massimo Robiony, Alex Alfieri, Pier Camillo Parodi.   

Abstract

Cranioplasty remains a difficult procedure for all craniofacial surgeons, particularly when concerning the reconstruction of large lacunae in the skull. Considering the significant clinical and economic impact of the procedure, the search for materials and strategies to provide more comfortable and reliable surgical procedures is one of the most important challenges faced by modern craniofacial medicine.The purpose of this study was to compare the available data regarding the safety and clinical efficacy of materials and techniques currently used for the reconstruction of the skull. Accordingly, the scientific databases were searched for the following keywords autologous bone, biomaterials, cranial reconstruction, cranioplasty, hydroxyapatite, polyetheretherketone, polymethylmethacrylate, and titanium. This literature review emphasizes the benefits and weaknesses of each considered material commonly used for cranioplasty, especially in terms of infectious complications, fractures, and morphological outcomes.As regards the latter, this appears to be very similar among the different materials when custom three-dimensional modeling is used for implant development, suggesting that this criterion is strongly influenced by implant design. However, the overall infection rate can vary from 0% to 30%, apparently dependent on the type of material used, likely in virtue of the wide variation in their chemico-physical composition. Among the different materials used for cranioplasty implants, synthetics such as polyetheretherketone, polymethylmethacrylate, and titanium show a higher primary tear resistance, whereas hydroxyapatite and autologous bone display good biomimetic properties, although the latter has been ascribed a variable reabsorption rate of between 3% and 50%.In short, all cranioplasty procedures and materials have their advantages and disadvantages, and none of the currently available materials meet the criteria required for an ideal implant. Hence, the choice of cranioplasty materials is still essentially reliant on the surgeon's preference.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28005754     DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Craniofac Surg        ISSN: 1049-2275            Impact factor:   1.046


  37 in total

1.  Management and prevention of cranioplasty infections.

Authors:  Paolo Frassanito; Flavia Fraschetti; Federico Bianchi; Francesca Giovannenze; Massimo Caldarelli; Giancarlo Scoppettuolo
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 1.475

2.  Deformation of cranioplasty titanium mesh in a paediatric patient following head trauma.

Authors:  Basel Sharaf; Malke Asaad; Joseph Banuelos; Jesse Meaike
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2019-06-11

Review 3.  Calvarial Reconstruction.

Authors:  Arvind Badhey; Sameep Kadakia; Moustafa Mourad; Jared Inman; Yadranko Ducic
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 2.314

4.  Surgical Approaches to the Orbit: Transpalpebral.

Authors:  Nikisha Q Richards
Journal:  J Neurol Surg B Skull Base       Date:  2021-02-02

Review 5.  Complications and cosmetic outcomes of materials used in cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy-a systematic review, pairwise meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jakob V E Gerstl; Luis F Rendon; Shane M Burke; Joanne Doucette; Rania A Mekary; Timothy R Smith
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 2.216

6.  Silicon nitride enhances osteoprogenitor cell growth and differentiation via increased surface energy and formation of amide and nanocrystalline HA for craniofacial reconstruction.

Authors:  Kamal R Awad; Neelam Ahuja; Ami Shah; Henry Tran; Pranesh B Aswath; Marco Brotto; Venu Varanasi
Journal:  Med Devices Sens       Date:  2019-05-06

7.  Amorphous Silicon Oxynitrophosphide-Coated Implants Boost Angiogenic Activity of Endothelial Cells.

Authors:  Felipe A do Monte; Kamal R Awad; Neelam Ahuja; Harry K W Kim; Pranesh Aswath; Marco Brotto; Venu G Varanasi
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part A       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 3.845

8.  Reconstruction of Acquired Frontal Bone Defects Using Titanium Mesh Implants: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Chandrashekhar Chattopadhyay
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2018-01-22

Review 9.  State-of-Art of Standard and Innovative Materials Used in Cranioplasty.

Authors:  Valentina Siracusa; Giuseppe Maimone; Vincenzo Antonelli
Journal:  Polymers (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 4.329

10.  Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Cranioplasty Implants.

Authors:  Adam Binhammer; Josie Jakubowski; Oleh Antonyshyn; Paul Binhammer
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 0.947

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.