4.2 Article

Non-Vascularized Autogenous Bone Grafts for Reconstruction of Maxillofacial Osseous Defects

Publisher

COLL PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS PAKISTAN
DOI: 10.29271/jcpsp.2018.01.17

Keywords

Maxillofacial osseous defect; Maxillofacial reconstruction; Non-vascularized bone grafts; Autogenous grafts; Guided bone regeneration; Maxillomandibular fixation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine the outcomes of non-vascularized bone grafts for reconstruction of maxillofacial defects. Study Design: Case series. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, from January 2013 to December 2015. Methodology: Descriptive analyses of 30 patients, who underwent maxillofacial reconstruction with non-vascularized bone grafts, were conducted. The demographic information, diagnosis, and type of graft harvested to reconstruct the defect were statistically analyzed. Outcomes of reconstruction with non-vascularized bone grafts were analyzed in terms of mouth opening, success of dental rehabilitation, and postoperative complications, i.e. surgical site infection and hardware loosening. Results: A total of 30 patients ranging from 8 to 60 years (33.57 +/- 14.74 years) had maxillofacial defects reconstructed mostly due to gunshot injuries, followed by post-resection defects. Overall 15 cases (50%) were reconstructed with iliac crest cortico-cancellous bone graft, 11 cases (36.7%) with rib; while in four cases (13.3%), costochondral graft was used for reconstruction. In 26 cases (86.7%), graft was found to be successful. In three cases, re-operation for onlay bone graft was required to provide optimal dental rehabilitation; while in just one case, postoperative surgical site infection was observed. Conclusion: Non-vascularized bone grafts provide a reasonable and effective modality for reconstruction of maxillofacial defects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available