Literature DB >> 29461365

Alternatives to Autologous Bone Graft in Alveolar Cleft Reconstruction: The State of Alveolar Tissue Engineering.

Fan Liang1,2, Hyuma Leland1, Breanna Jedrzejewski3, Allyn Auslander4, Seija Maniskas5, Jordan Swanson1,4,6, Mark Urata1,4,6, Jeffrey Hammoudeh1,4,6, William Magee1,4,6.   

Abstract

Alveolar cleft reconstruction has historically relied on autologous iliac crest bone grafting (ICBG), but donor site morbidity, pain, and prolonged hospitalization have prompted the search for bone graft substitutes. The authors evaluated bone graft substitutes with the highest levels of evidence, and highlight the products that show promise in alveolar cleft repair and in maxillary augmentation. This comprehensive review guides the craniofacial surgeon toward safe and informed utilization of biomaterials in the alveolar cleft.A literature search was performed to identify in vitro human studies that fulfilled the following criteria: Level I or Level II of evidence, ≥30 subjects, and a direct comparison between a autologous bone graft and a bone graft substitute. A second literature search was performed that captured all studies, regardless of level of evidence, which evaluated bone graft substitutes for alveolar cleft repair or alveolar augmentation for dental implants. Adverse events for each of these products were tabulated as well.Sixteen studies featuring 6 bone graft substitutes: hydroxyapatite, demineralized bone matrix (DBM), β-tricalcium phosphate (TCP), calcium phosphate, recombinant human bone morphogenic protein-2 (rhBMP-2), and rhBMP7 fit the inclusion criteria for the first search. Through our second search, the authors found that DBM, TCP, rhBMP-2, and rhBMP7 have been studied most extensively in the alveolar cleft literature, though frequently in studies using less rigorous methodology (Level III evidence or below). rhBMP-2 was the best studied and showed comparable efficacy to ICBG in terms of volume of bone regeneration, bone density, and capacity to accommodate tooth eruption within the graft site. Pricing for products ranged from $290 to $3110 per 5 mL.The balance between innovation and safety is a complex process requiring constant vigilance and evaluation. Here, the authors profile several bone graft substitutes that demonstrate the most promise in alveolar cleft reconstruction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29461365     DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004300

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


  15 in total

1.  Transforming the Degradation Rate of β-tricalcium Phosphate Bone Replacement Using 3-Dimensional Printing.

Authors:  Chen Shen; Maxime M Wang; Lukasz Witek; Nick Tovar; Bruce N Cronstein; Andrea Torroni; Roberto L Flores; Paulo G Coelho
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 1.763

2.  [Influence of different sintering temperatures on mesoporous structure and ectopic osteogenesis of biphasic calcium phosphate ceramic granule materials].

Authors:  Dong Zhang; Xianlei Zong; Xiaoshuang Guo; Hong Du; Guodong Song; Xiaolei Jin
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2021-01-15

Review 3.  Clinical Application of Stem Cell Therapy in Reconstructing Maxillary Cleft Alveolar Bone Defects: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Eman Alfayez; Faisal Alghamdi
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-03-13

4.  Safety and Efficacy of Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 (rhBMP-2) in Craniofacial Surgery.

Authors:  Elie P Ramly; Allyson R Alfonso; Rami S Kantar; Maxime M Wang; J Rodrigo Diaz Siso; Amel Ibrahim; Paulo G Coelho; Roberto L Flores
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2019-08-19

5.  Dipyridamole-loaded 3D-printed bioceramic scaffolds stimulate pediatric bone regeneration in vivo without disruption of craniofacial growth through facial maturity.

Authors:  Maxime M Wang; Roberto L Flores; Lukasz Witek; Andrea Torroni; Amel Ibrahim; Zhong Wang; Hannah A Liss; Bruce N Cronstein; Christopher D Lopez; Samantha G Maliha; Paulo G Coelho
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 6.  Extracellular Matrix Composition and Remodeling: Current Perspectives on Secondary Palate Formation, Cleft Lip/Palate, and Palatal Reconstruction.

Authors:  Katiúcia Batista Silva Paiva; Clara Soeiro Maas; Pâmella Monique Dos Santos; José Mauro Granjeiro; Ariadne Letra
Journal:  Front Cell Dev Biol       Date:  2019-12-13

Review 7.  Tissue engineering applications in otolaryngology-The state of translation.

Authors:  Weston L Niermeyer; Cole Rodman; Michael M Li; Tendy Chiang
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-06-19

8.  Bone formation potential of collagen type I-based recombinant peptide particles in rat calvaria defects.

Authors:  Yasunori Akiyama; Masaaki Ito; Taku Toriumi; Takahiro Hiratsuka; Yoshinori Arai; Sho Tanaka; Taku Futenma; Yuhki Akiyama; Kazuhiro Yamaguchi; Akihiko Azuma; Ken-Ichiro Hata; Nagato Natsume; Masaki Honda
Journal:  Regen Ther       Date:  2020-12-24       Impact factor: 3.419

9.  3D Printing of Bone Grafts for Cleft Alveolar Osteoplasty - In vivo Evaluation in a Preclinical Model.

Authors:  Paula Korn; Tilman Ahlfeld; Franziska Lahmeyer; David Kilian; Philipp Sembdner; Ralph Stelzer; Winnie Pradel; Adrian Franke; Martina Rauner; Ursula Range; Bernd Stadlinger; Anja Lode; Günter Lauer; Michael Gelinsky
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2020-03-25

Review 10.  Innovative Molecular and Cellular Therapeutics in Cleft Palate Tissue Engineering.

Authors:  Jeremie D Oliver; Shihai Jia; Leslie R Halpern; Emily M Graham; Emma C Turner; John S Colombo; David W Grainger; Rena N D'Souza
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part B Rev       Date:  2020-09-28       Impact factor: 7.376

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.