Literature DB >> 9890353

Vascularized bone flaps versus nonvascularized bone grafts for mandibular reconstruction: an outcome analysis of primary bony union and endosseous implant success.

R D Foster1, J P Anthony, A Sharma, M A Pogrel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Functional restoration following resection or traumatic injury to the mandible depends on the reliability of the bony reconstruction to heal primarily and support endosseous implants. Although vascularized bone flaps (VBF) and nonvascularized bone grafts (NVBG) are both widely used to reconstruct the mandible, indications for each remain ill-defined. The purpose of this study was to compare bone graft/flap healing and success of implant placement in patients reconstructed with VBF versus NVBG.
METHODS: Over the past 10 years, 75 consecutive mandibular reconstructions were performed (26 free bone grafts, 49 vascularized bone flaps). Etiology of the defect, history of irradiation, bone defect size, number of operations, graft/flap success, and dental implant success rates were determined and compared. Bone graft/flap success was defined as complete bony union. Implant success was defined as complete osseointegration. Mean follow-up was 3 years.
RESULTS: Free flaps were used primarily for malignant disease (78%, 38/49). Bone grafts were used primarily for benign disease (88%, 23/26). History of prior irradiation: 11% (3/26) NVBG versus 45% (22/49) VBF. Length of bony defect (mean): 8.1 cm NVBG versus 9.4 cm VBF. Successful bony union, any size defect: 69% (18/26) NVBG versus 96% (47/49) VBF (p < .0005); lateral defects only: 75% (15/20) NVBG versus 100% (17/17) VBF (p < .05). Number of operations to achieve bony union (mean), any size defect: 2.3 NVBG versus 1.1 VBF (p < .001); lateral defects only: 1.9 NVBG versus 1.0 VBF (p < .005). Twenty-two patients (29%) had a total of 104 endosseous implants placed (NVBG: 8 patients, 33 implants; VBF: 14 patients, 71 implants). Immediate implants placed: 0/33 NVBG versus 54% (38/71) VBF. Overall implant success: 82% (27/33) NVBG versus 99% (70/71) VBF (p < .0001). Implant success in VBF patients with a history of RT: 100% (15/15).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fact that patients reconstructed with VBFs were older, had larger defects, and were treated primarily for malignant disease and therefore had a higher incidence of irradiation to the affected mandible than in patients treated with NVBGs, the incidence of bony union was higher, requiring fewer operations to achieve union, and the implant success rate was significantly greater than for NVBG patients. Results were similar when considering lateral defects only. Based on these results, VBFs are indicated in most cases of mandibular reconstruction; NVBGs are effective for short bone defects (<5-6 cm), in nonirradiated tissue, and/or in patients determined to be too medically compromised to tolerate the additional operative time required for a free-flap reconstruction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 9890353     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0347(199901)21:1<66::aid-hed9>3.0.co;2-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Head Neck        ISSN: 1043-3074            Impact factor:   3.147


  54 in total

1.  Bone grafts in craniofacial surgery.

Authors:  Mohammed E Elsalanty; David G Genecov
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2009-10

2.  5th Rib Osteo-pectoralis Major Myocutaneous Flap-Still a Viable Option for Mandibular Defect Reconstruction.

Authors:  N Brian Shunyu; Jayanta Medhi; Hanifa Akhtar Laskar; Nari Lyngdoh; Judita Syiemlieh; Amit Goyal
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2014-06-04

3.  Dentate transport discs can be used to reconstruct large segmental mandibular defects.

Authors:  Mohammed E Elsalanty; Veera Malavia; Ibrahim Zakhary; Timothy Mulone; Elias D Kontogiorgos; Paul C Dechow; Lynne A Opperman
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2014-12-13       Impact factor: 1.895

Review 4.  Mandibular Reconstruction: Overview.

Authors:  Batchu Pavan Kumar; V Venkatesh; K A Jeevan Kumar; B Yashwanth Yadav; S Ram Mohan
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2015-04-19

5.  [Therapeutic strategies for the reconstruction of extensive mandibular defects].

Authors:  K Freier; C Mertens; M Engel; J Hoffmann
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.284

6.  Efficacy of PRP in the Reconstruction of Mandibular Segmental Defects Using Iliac Bone Grafts.

Authors:  D P Uma Magesh; C Kumaravelu; G Uma Maheshwari
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2012-09-27

7.  Reconstruction of the maxilla using a fibula graft and virtual planning techniques.

Authors:  Kristian Rude; Torben H Thygesen; Jens Ahm Sørensen
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2014-05-14

Review 8.  Reconstruction of Continuity Defects of the Mandible with Non-vascularized Bone Grafts. Systematic Literature Review.

Authors:  Babatunde Olayemi Akinbami
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2016-03-03

9.  Reconstruction of canine mandibular bone defects using a bone transport reconstruction plate.

Authors:  Mohammed E Elsalanty; Ibrahim Zakhary; Sara Akeel; Byron Benson; Timothy Mulone; Gilbert R Triplett; Lynne A Opperman
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 1.539

10.  Rat bone marrow stem cells isolation and culture as a bone formative experimental system.

Authors:  Amer Smajilagić; Mufida Aljičević; Amira Redžić; Selma Filipović; Alena Lagumdžija
Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.363

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.